Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the ease of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of the Australian Commonwealth on behalf of British investors, who hold some £700,000,000 of Commonwealth securities, against the action of the Australian Government in repudiating its obligation to pay the interest and principal of the 4½ per cent. Australian Government loan issued in New York in 1928, with gold clause, in legal tender of the country where the bonds are payable to the full equivalent current value of the gold expressed therein as interpreted by the legal decision in another place in the case of Feist v. Société Intercommunale Beige d'Electricité?

The Secretary of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The loan referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, having been issued in New York, would appear to be governed by the law of the United States of America. I do not therefore think that the decision referred to in the question is relevant nor that the question of making the representations suggested arises.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: May I ask whether this is not a further example of the failure of the Gold Standard system?

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (ECONOMIC SITUATION).

Mr. PARKINSON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of Sir Alan Pirn's report on the economic situation in Bechuana-land, he will advise that the expenditure recommended by Sir Alan Pim shall be found either through the Colonial Development Fund or by some other means?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. MAXTON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any Report from the Newfoundland commissioners as to the state of affairs in the island; whether he can state the number of persons now unemployed in Newfoundland; and what steps are now taken for their relief under the new control?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Commissioners have not yet had time to submit any considered general report, but since the new Government in Newfoundland took office, they have recommended expenditure of $400,000 on able-bodied relief in the current financial year in addition to the $1,000,000 already incurred, and also a further $10,000 a month for relief in districts where no vegetables are available. Both proposals have been approved. I am asking the Governor for a report as to the number of persons now unemployed in Newfoundland and as to the arrangements now in force for their relief, and will communicate this information to the honourable member on its receipt.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long he expects this Commission to be in Newfoundland, and, if it happens to be two or three years, will there be interim reports on what they are doing?

Mr. THOMAS: Obviously, no one could know better than my hon. Friend that Commissioners who have taken up a delicate and difficult task like this ought to be given a fair opportunity of judging
the situation. In the interval I can answer specific questions. This question was directed to the facts as to unemployment, and that I have answered. Any report received will be submitted immediately I get it.

Mr. HANNON: Are there indications in Newfoundland of an improvement in the economic situation?

Mr. MAXTON: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these proposals for additional relief for the unemployed have been approved, by whom have they been approved?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have explained, the expenditure is now largely governed by sanction from this country, as it has to be under the circumstances. When I said "approved," I meant that the proposals had been submitted to me and that I had approved them.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Has every proposal for economic changes to be submitted to this country before it can be acted upon? Will not that lead to endless delays?

Mr. THOMAS: We must differentiate among the proposals. If the British Government hold themselves responsible for large expenditure, they must have some voice in the control of it; but, equally, a discretion is given to the Com-missioners, and the reputation of the Commissioners is the best evidence that they will use that discretion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

AEMS (EXPORT LICENCES).

Mr. MANDER: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of occasions during the last four years on which licences for the export of arms were refused?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Seven formal applications for licences to export arms were refused during the four years 1930 to 1933. I should, however, add that in cases of doubt prospective applicants normally make informal inquiries, and that no information is available as to the number of cases in which inquirers were informed that a licence would not be issued.

Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to the reason why they were refused?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I could not, unless specific cases were submitted to me.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. STOREY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to assist British stripping to meet foreign subsidised competition?

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to make a statement concerning the Government plans to assist the mercantile marine and relieve it from the present depression?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the matters referred to, but I hope to be able to do so at no distant date.

Mr. RANKIN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many nations have expressed their willingness to co-operate in the holding of a maritime conference to study the present situation of shipping, and which these nations are?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The countries which have informed His Majesty's Government in the sense indicated in the question are Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Greece.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: May we have the assurance that this Conference will not hold up the consideration of the recommendations submitted by the Chamber of Shipping?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendations of the Chamber of Shipping are under very close discussion with the shipping industry.

NETHERLANDS (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an assurance that in the trade negotiations with the Netherlands he will not undertake any obligations which will limit the power of the Government to protect milk and milk products, whether by duties or quotas?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the results of the negotiations, but I can assure him that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that when the Danish Treaty was under negotiation we had similar answers, and it ultimately tied us so that we cannot protect our agriculture against Danish imports, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the anxiety there is respecting these negotiations?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not accept my hon. Friend's statement that we cannot protect our agriculture against anything.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend say, in those circumstances, when the Government are going to start?

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is it not a fact that the Milk Board are asking for protection?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the previous arrangements entered into have been viewed with suspicion by agriculturists in this country, and that they have done a great deal of harm?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I fear the suspicion is groundless.

Mr. RANKIN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement with regard to the forthcoming Anglo-Dutch trade negotiations; and whether he will arrange that the question of shipping shall be placed on the agenda?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Preliminary discussions with representatives of the Netherlands Government are being held in London this week and the first meeting took place this morning. The object of these discussions is to determine the scope of any negotiations and in this connection shipping will not be overlooked.

COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. CHORLTON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the letters sent to him from the secretary of the Cotton Trade League; and what action he proposes to take with reference to the matters raised therein?

Mr. REMER: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the
progress of his negotiations with the Japanese Government as to the position in the textile industries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received copies of resolutions adopted by the Cotton Trade League regarding the export trade in cotton goods, and these and other similar representations are receiving the constant attention of the Government. On the question of Japanese competition I am not at present in a position to add to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 10th April.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on a matter which is so important to the interests concerned and affects so many people?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I realise the importance of the subject, and that is the reason why I cannot fix a date at the present moment.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these negotiations have been going on for 12 months and that the cotton trade is getting very tired of these delays? In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we have had, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

CHINA (TREATY RIGHTS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in connection with any negotiations taking place, or contemplated, regarding the note recently received from China concerning old commercial treaty rights, he will first consult the commercial interests in this country that may be concerned?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No negotiations for the revision of the treaty rights in question are taking place at present. Should negotiations take place, I shall not fail to consult commercial interests in this country as occasion arises.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. HOWARD: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he proposes to take to safeguard the British iron industry against undue competition from within the Empire, having regard to the fact that the imports of pig-iron from India increased from 15,372 tons for the three months January to March, 1933, to 23,213 tons for the same months in 1934?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend refers; but I would point out that the tonnage imported in the first quarter of 1934 was still below that imported in the first quarter of 1932. By undertaking, in the United Kingdom-Indian Ottawa Agreement, to continue duty-free entry for Indian pig-iron, valuable tariff preferences were obtained for the exports of United Kingdom iron and steel goods to India, the value of which has been substantially greater than last year.

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that iron and steel imports at the rate of 1,500,000 tons per annum are entering the British market in competition with local production, he will state what measures are contemplated by the Government, in co-operation with the newly-established British Iron and Steel Federation, for more adequate protection of British iron and steel manufacturers?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of iron and steel have increased from 244,000 tons in the first three months of 1933 to 364,000 tons in the same period of 1934; and, under these circumstances, if he will introduce legislation to provide for an upward revision of the duties on iron and steel at an early date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the increased imports to which my hon. Friends draw attention. As regards the last part of the questions, I would refer to the reply given on the 17th April to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Mr. HANNON: Are we to understand that there is to be continuous co-operation between the Board of Trade and the British Iron and Steel Federation in order to take such steps as may be necessary to give the fullest opportunity for the production of steel in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is the object that we have had in view in facilitating the setting up of that body.

RUBBER FOOTWEAR (IMPORTS).

Mr. GUY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the
imports of rubber footwear from British countries other than Canada increased from 3,948 pairs in March, 1933, to 381,216 pairs in March, 1934; if he can state the countries of origin of these goods; and if he will consider the amendment of the Import Duties Act, 1932, so as to apply the principle of the Ottawa Agreements to these imports either by placing a preferential duty or by quantitative regulation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend draws attention. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the countries from which these goods were consigned. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not, at present, in a position to add to the reply I gave on the 6th February to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. Williams).

Mr. GUY: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the increasing and unrestricted entry of these goods into this country presents a very serious danger to British manufacturers?

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the effect that the extra duty on patent leather will have?

Following is the statement:

The following table shows the total quantity of rubber boots, shoes, etc., registered as imported into the United Kingdom during the month of March, 1933 and 1934, and consigned from the undermentioned British countries.


Rubber boots, bootees, shoes, overshoes, slippers, etc.
Quantity.


March, 1933.
March, 1934.



Dozen Pairs.
Dozen Pairs.


Imports consigned from:




British India
—
350


Straits Settlements
323
2,735


Federated Malay States
—
1,293


Hong Kong
6
27,390


Total
329
31,768

TIMBER IMPORTS (RUSSIAN ORIGIN).

Dr. HOWITT: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during the year 1933 Russian timber to a
value of £500,000 has been shipped to this country via Finland and sold as genuine Finnish timber; and whether he is taking such steps as may be necessary to prevent this occurring in the future?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for Kensington South (Sir W. Davison), of which I am sending him a copy.

RETAINED IMPORTS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the retained imports, for the first quarter of the year, of goods described as articles wholly or mainly manufactured are over 22 per cent. higher this year than last year; and, under these circumstances, what additional measures of protection the Government proposes to take to ensure the British manufacturers a larger share in the home market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the increase to which my hon. Friend draws attention. I would, however, refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on the 28th March.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As the situation is getting progressively worse month by month, is it not time that something was done?

HON. MEMBERS: Things are improving!

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the practice whereby Polish-Dutch fishing companies land herring in Holland, where they are repacked for despatch to Poland; whether he can say if such herring are admitted into Poland duty free; and whether he is satisfied that adequate precautions are taken to see that all herring imported into Poland under such circumstances have in fact been caught by Polish nationals?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am making inquiries as to the present position of this matter, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

NEW FACTORIES (SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been erected in Scotland during the past two and a-half years; and what is the number of persons finding employment therein?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A survey of industrial development, which will include particulars of new factories established in Scotland in 1932 and 1933, will, it is hoped, be issued early in May.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is there any indication of a progressive increase in the number of factories?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will wait until the publication early in May, he will be able to draw his own deduction.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: How comes it about that the right hon. Gentleman is always able to give the House information as to new factories in England, but he cannot give similar information about Scotland?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I always treat Scotland on exactly the same terms as I treat England.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. CAPORN: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in accordance with the duty imposed upon them by the provisions of the Import Duties Act, 1932, consider a substantial rise in the imports of any classes of manufactured goods which are either articles of luxury or can be produced here in substantial quantities, including such articles as hosiery, lace, and gloves, and make recommendations for any revision of duties they consider advisable to secure national interests, including those of restricting imports and increasing employment without waiting for an application from any outside source; and if he will direct the attention of the committee to the substantial rise in imports in the articles specified since the beginning of the present year?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The committee are required by the Import Duties Act to take into consideration any representations which may be made to them, and they have power to make a
recommendation even in the absence of representations where it appears to them that, having regard to the provisions of the Act, an additional duty ought to be charged. The committee are supplied regularly with the official returns of imports.

Mr. CAPORN: Do the committee, in fact, regard it as a duty to the workers of the nation to exercise their statutory powers, without waiting for representations from the employers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think so. I have no reason to suppose otherwise.

SILK DUTIES.

Captain STRICKLAND: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet any further statement to make with regard to the resumption of the consideration by the tariffs advisory committee of the question of the silk and artificial silk duties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I have not at present anything to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Lyons) on 11th April on this subject.

Captain STRICKLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is holding up the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some final discussions are taking place, but I do not think it will be long before I am able to make a further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS POISONING (SUICIDES).

Mr. LECKIE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing number of suicides through gas stoves, he will make inquiries as to the practicability of introducing into coal-gas at the place of manufacture some pungent or disagreeable chemical agent which would render it more difficult for anyone attempting suicide in this way to do so?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The practicability of introducing irritant or odorous material other than that provided for in the Gas (Carbon Monoxide) Order of 1922 was considered by the Committee on Deaths from Gas Poisoning in 1930, but after
reviewing the objections to such addition the committee decided to make no recommendation in this respect. In accordance with another recommendation a central advisory committee was set up by the industries concerned, and I am satisfied that this committee would acquaint me with any development which would render further action practicable.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it would have any effect if these poor, deranged wretches could take some more painful method of leaving this world?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE SCHOOL.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 23.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many of the officers comprising the staff of the antiaircraft defence school have served a period of attachment to the Royal Air Force?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): None of the officers of the staff of this school have been officially attached, but they are in such close touch with the Royal Air Force that official attachment is considered unnecessary.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Will it be possible for some of these officers to have practical aerial experience?

Mr. COOPER: We do not consider it necessary.

REMOUNTS (PURCHASES, SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 25.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what is the total number and value of remounts purchased in Scotland during each year since 1931, and what number it is expected will be purchased therefrom during the current year?

Mr. COOPER: The figures are as follow: 15 in 1931 for £845, 22 in 1932 for £1,390 and 14 in 1933 for £841. I am unable to forecast the purchases during the current year.

HOSPITALS (MILK CONTRACTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the contracts of the hospitals
under his control require the purchase of certified, Grade A, or ordinary standard milk?

Mr. COOPER: Tenders are invited for fresh and for pasteurised milk for hospitals, but not for certified or Grade A milk. The fresh milk has to comply with the Department's specification and is required to be not below the standard required by the Sale of Milk Regulations, 1901. Unless the cost is excessive, preference is invariably given to pasteurised milk, and this type of milk is being supplied to the majority of military hospitals under the existing contracts.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can my hon. Friend say why contracts do not specify certified or Grade "A" milk?

Mr. COOPER: We find the milk supplied under present contracts very Satisfactory.

MESS DRESS (MINIATURE DECORATIONS).

Brigadier-General NATION: 26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that it is obligatory for officers to wear miniature decorations with mess dress, he will consider the issue of these free of cost, in the same way that full-sized decorations are issued, or, alternatively, that a grant of money be made for their purchase?

Mr. COOPER: The official recognition of an award is the actual medal or decoration, and this is, therefore, supplied free. The miniature is part of the mess dress of an officer, and I regret that I am unable to entertain the suggestions made in the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING (MILTON OF CAMPSIE, STIRLINGSHIRE).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring before the Department of Health the request by the Lennoxtown branch of the Scottish Socialist party for increased housing under the 1930 Act in Milton of Campsie, Stirlingshire, in view of the refusal of the Stirlingshire County Council to provide the population with housing facilities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The Department
are aware of the request referred to. I am informed that the county council have already built 36 houses at Milton of Campsie, and propose to proceed with the erection of 12 more. They have also taken steps to secure the reconstruction of certain properties by the proprietors. The Department are now considering whether the county council's proposals are adequate.

MILK PRICES.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the report from the Scottish Consumers' Committee regarding its investigations into the protests against the decision of the Scottish Milk Board to charge winter prices for summer supplies, and, if so, what action he intends to take to secure a reduction in urices as requested by the consumers; and if he is aware that the co-operative societies estimate the increased prices will cost Scottish consumers £1,300,000 extra in the Milk Board area?

Mr. LEONARD: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the report of the Consumers' Committee inquiring into the complaints directed against the prices fixed by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for half-pint bottles of milk and for the summer period; what is the nature of their recommendations and if they are unanimous; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend has received the reports of the Consumers' Committee on these complaints. He is at present considering the question of referring them to the Committee of Investigation. He would be obliged if another question on this point and on that of publication were addressed to him at an early date. My right hon. Friend is aware of the estimate referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), but it must not be assumed that he agrees with it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the first half of the reply, if I put a question down in a fortnight's time will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to give a better answer?

Mr. SKELTON: I suggest that the hon. Member put the question down for Thursday.

Mr. LEONARD: Cart the hon. Gentleman say whether the interim report of the consumers' committee was unanimous, and, if so, can he not act, in view of the fact that if we wait for the investigating committee to report, the summer will be over and finished?

Mr. SKELTON: In regard to the latter point, the hon. Member will recollect that the Act of 1931 laid down the procedure that the report of the consumers' committee, if the Minister thinks proper, may be sent to the investigating committee.

Mr. LEONARD: May I have an answer to my question as to whether the report was unanimous?

Mr. SKELTON: I would prefer not to answer that question at this stage. Perhaps an early question might be put down on that point.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in the islands of Islay, Coll, and Gigha the farmers are being refused the guaranteed minimum price of 5d. per gallon for manufacturing milk; and, in view of the injury to the islanders' cheese industry by the granting to mainland farmers of the guaranteed minimum price, coupled with the refusal thereof to the islanders, will he take steps to immediately secure equality of treatment for islanders and mainlanders and give the guaranteed minimum to both?

Mr. SKELTON: As there is no marketing scheme applicable to the islands referred to, the administrative machinery under the Government's proposals for guaranteeing minimum prices for milk used for manufacturing purposes is not available. It is open to the producers concerned to prepare and submit a milk marketing scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not my hon. Friend see the practical difficulties of doing that? These people are being treated very harshly, and almost the only remedy left to them is to take out certificates of Danish nationalisation.

Mr. SKELTON: I cannot accept that, although one is naturally interested in the future of cheese-making in these important islands. I think that, if my hon.
and learned Friend and those interested in the matter would consider formulating a marketing scheme for themselves, they would not find the difficulties very great, and it would bring them within the orbit of the guaranteed price.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my hon. Friend aware of the scattered nature of these islands, which makes it almost impossible for the people to act together? Their main industry is cheese-making. They make the best cheese in the British Isles, as is shown by the fact that the Co-operative Wholesale Society buy it.

BACON AND HAM MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the protests from the Scottish Provision Trade Association Executive against the continuance of the Bacon and Ham Marketing Board which they allege has inflicted widespread hardship and injustice on many sections of the community, has created an artificial scarcity, forced up prices, and deprived a large proportion of the industrial population of a staple food; and if he is prepared, in view of the representations of the association, to order an inquiry into the operation of the board in Scotland, with a view to protecting consumers against an artificial scarcity and increased prices?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend has received from the Scottish Provision Trade Association representations based upon an alleged scarcity of hams. The representations have been referred to the Market Supply Committee for investigation.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. BURNETT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland from how many bodies he has received objections to the proposals of the Educational Endowments Commissioners?

Mr. SKELTON: Seventy-two schemes received by the Department from the commissioners have been advertised in accordance with the statutory requirement, so as to give information to all interested persons, and to elicit objections. One hundred and fifty-six bodies have objected to various points in 71 of the schemes, an average of 2.2 per scheme. A number of these objections were to points of detail. Against the
remaining scheme, that for Aberlour Orphanage, 846 objections were received, the majority of them printed postcards to the same effect from subscribers to the orphanage. The commissioners have asked the Department to remit this scheme to them, in order that effect may be given to certain agreed amendments which, I am informed, will render the scheme acceptable to the objectors.

Mr. BURNETT: Is there any means of stifling the activities of these commissioners, who are mutilating and mangling the bursary system of Scotland at the present time, and causing very great complaint?

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member will realise that very great difficulties are inherent in stifling Acts of Parliament.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Could the hon. Gentleman not put it to the commissioners that they should stop their activities and rely upon their ordinary humanity, because so much harm is being done?

Mr. SKELTON: I shall not contradict or attempt to contradict the orders of Parliament.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to make a statement as to the future of this commission?

Mr. SKELTON: I could not make a statement at the present moment as to whether legislation will be produced.

METHYLATED SPIRITS (HUMAN CONSUMPTION).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state on behalf of which local authorities in Scotland he has received representations during the last six months concerning the drinking of methylated spirits and the necessity for further restrictions on its sale; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. SKELTON: During the last six months representations in favour of legislation to prohibit or prevent the sale of methylated spirits or kindred spirits for human consumption have been made to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the town councils of Aberdeen, Clydebank, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Greenock, Inverness, Paisley and Stirling. As from the 15th March, 1934,
new formulae for surgical spirit have been brought into operation by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It is hoped that these will render surgical spirit undrinkable, and it is proposed to await the results of this experiment before considering whether further measures restricting the sale of methylated and surgical spirits are necessary.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to restrict the sale of methylated spirits that will not be affected by the new formulae for surgical spirits?

Mr. SKELTON: I will consider the question.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the best way to stop this to reduce the duty on whisky?

POOE RELIEF.

Mr. MAXTON: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state what recourse is open to the public assistance committees of small burghs in Scotland where their recommendations as to relief are rejected by the county council public assistance committee or its officials?

Mr. SKELTON: Where the town council of a small burgh carries out any functions in relation to poor relief, it does so as the agent of the county council, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the administrative scheme for the county. In matters which the town council, as agent, has full authority to determine, the question of a recommendation does not arise. In other matters, my right hon. Friend is aware of no recourse against a county council which refuses to adopt a recommendation of a town council.

Mr. MAXTON: Where the public assistance committee of a town council have made a recommendation and are being treated with contempt by the officials of the county council, is there no possibility of appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: I have nothing to add to my answer. If the hon. Member will bring before me any specific case which he has in mind, it may be more easy to deal with the question put to me.

Mr. MAXTON: I could bring you dozens.

SCOTTISH TRAVEL ASSOCIATION (EXHIBITION).

Sir ROBERT HORNE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any Government Departments or public authorities are co-operating in the exhibition at the Imperial Institute which is being organised by the Scottish Travel Association?

Mr. SKELTON: The Board of Governors of the Imperial Institute have assisted the Scottish Travel Association by lending accommodation, and the Scottish Departments, as well as many Scottish bodies, are giving help in connection with the arrangements. Assistance is also being given by the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is opening the exhibition on Friday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL RESEARCH.

Mr. LIDDALL: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can now inform the House of the discovery of any new oilfield in this country; and, if so, can it be tapped in commercial quantities?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir, but renewed interest in the possibility of finding oil has led to the introduction of the Bill which passed its Second Reading in another place last week. I would point out to my hon. Friend that an oilfield is only regarded as having been discovered when it has been tested with the drill, and the existence of oil in commercial quantities has been determined.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COAL MINES BILL.

Miss WARD: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to inform the House whether, as a result of his negotiations with the central council of the Mining Association, he is prepared to withdraw the Coal Mines Bill designed to amend Part I of the 1930 Act?

Mr. T. SMITH: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the progress of the Coal Mines Bill?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am glad to say that assurances have now been received from the central council and from all the districts that the respective schemes in force under Part I of the 1930 Act will be amended in a manner considered satisfactory by the Government. Further proceedings on the Coal Mines Bill will, therefore, be suspended.

Miss WARD: In congratulating the Minister most warmly on the success of this policy for obtaining united action by the districts, may I ask him on what date he proposes to bring his Order to the House for confirmation?

Mr. BROWN: After I have received formal representations.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GORDON MAC-DONALD: 39
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of man shifts worked in the mining industry during the first quarter of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire;
(2) the number of persons employed in the mining industry during the first quarters of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, giving separate figures for Lancashire;
(3) the output per man per shift in the mining industry in the first quarter of 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply to these questions involves a statistical table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACDONALD: What is the reason for circulating this answer, when last week the hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question as to output, was able to give the figures to the House?

Mr. BROWN: It is a whole series of tables.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the ' House whether the number of miners in Lancashire is increasing or declining?

Mr. BROWN: It is declining.

Mr. MACDONALD: Is that due to the Government's policy?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly not. It would have declined much more but for the Government's policy.

Following is the table:


COAL MINING INDUSTRY.


Quarter ended 31st March.
Estimated number of manshifts worked above and below-ground.
Average number of wage earners on colliery books.
Average output per manshift worked above and below-ground (cwts.).



A.—Great Britain.


1931
…
…
…
…
52,700,000
878,800
21.78


1932
…
…
…
…
50,800,000
836,400
21.98


1933
…
…
…
…
49,600,000
788,800
22.67


1934
…
…
…
…
*
787,000
*



B.—Lancashire and Cheshire.


1931
…
…
…
…
4,505,000
72,900
17.51


1932
…
…
…
…
4,088,000
68,800
17.63


1933
…
…
…
…
4,027,000
65,300
18.59


1934
…
…
…
…
*
63,700
*


* Not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFILIATION CASES (BLOOD TESTS).

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 42 and 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that, in a recent case of disputed paternity, both parties agreed to accept a blood-test as evidence, and that the magistrates decided the case without such evidence; and whether he will consider the advisability of securing the admission of such evidence on the requisition of either party with retrospective effect;
(2) whether he is aware that blood-tests are accepted in several countries as normal evidence of non-paternity; that this evidence is found to be conclusive in one out of three cases of actual non-paternity; and whether he will take the necessary steps to make such proof admissible in the English courts?

The Secretary of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am advised that, if evidence with regard to a blood-test is available, such evidence is admissible under the existing law in this country. Such difficulties as exist appear to be rather of a practical than of a legal character, and to arise from the fact that the cost of arranging for such a test would fall on

the man concerned, and that he would have to secure the co-operation of the woman. I am giving my careful consideration to the whole matter, but, if there were any question of compelling persons to submit to a blood-test, legislation would be required for this purpose.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make known to the magistrates in the country the fact that they may accept this evidence, which at present they are refusing?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think there is no question that the magistrates are fully aware of that point.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: If, in a particular case, the magistrates refuse to accept this evidence, is it possible for the case to be re-opened?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; it would be for the magistrates to sum up what was the value of such evidence.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Did not the magistrates refuse to accept it as con-elusive?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEREGRINE FALCONS.

Mr. PIKE: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increasing
slaughter of homing and carrier pigeons by the peregrine falcon, he will seek powers to remove from the protected lists all birds of this species?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Under the existing law there is power to make local Orders varying the protection given to any class of wild bird, but this power is only exerciseable on an application to the Home Office from the council of a county or a county borough. The question, therefore, is one for consideration in the first instance by the appropriate local authority.

Mr. PIKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these powers in no way cover the hardships suffered by fanciers, seeing that the attacks of this bird of prey, in the vast majority of cases, occur in areas far beyond the areas in which the owners of the pigeons reside? Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to that point?

Mr. PARKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive representations from the National Homing Union, or make arrangements to receive a deputation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: These powers rest with the local authorities, not with my office.

Mr. PIKE: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to an imprint of stamp used by the French postal authorities in the interests of the homing and carrier pigeon; and if, in view of the number of these birds killed by peregrine falcons and in other ways in this country and the resulting losses to owners of pigeons, he will consider the use by the British postal authority of a similar device?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am aware of the use by the French postal authorities of a stamp cancelling impression relative to the protection of carrier pigeons. The requests for advertisement by postmark of good causes of all kinds are so numerous that to comply with all would be impracticable and compliance with any particular one would involve invidious discrimination. I regret, therefore, that I cannot see my way to meet my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the adoption of the suggestion
by the postal authorities may have a moral effect upon people who continue to desire the protection of peregrine falcons.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given by the Government and its technical advisers to the question of the possible application of an embargo on imports from an aggressor or treaty-breaking State as a general economic sanction under the League of Nations and Disarmament Convention?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir. Consideration has naturally been given to the question, since the measure referred to is one of those contemplated in the Covenant of the League of Nations.

SUBSCRIPTIONS.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will furnish a list of the countries which are still in arrears with their subscriptions to the League of Nations, and to what extent?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): As the answer is a long one, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The memorandum by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on the financial situation, as at the 31st March last, contains the following statement regarding the contribution in arrears:

A.—Consolidated arrears payable by annual instalments:



Gold francs.


China, 1922–1930
8,252,579.78


Honduras, 1920–1922
55,326.58


Nicaragua, 1920–1922
48,061.45


Paraguay, 1920–1922
15,370.80


Salvador, 1920–1922
6,087.62

B.—Arrears of State in special situation:



Gold francs.


Argentine
4,313,717.37


C.—Other arrears:


Albania
33,503.95


Germany
1,325,280.93


Bolivia
1,177,176.54


Bulgaria
180,005.60





Gold francs.


Canada
370,701.48


Chile
1,365,893.23


China
2,256,879.25


Colombia
188,909.59


Cuba
904,865.76


Dominican Republic
12,428.38


Abyssinia
14,041.85


Greece
57,778.76


Guatemala
120,328.47


Honduras
275,597.01


Hungary
511,063.30


Liberia
98,090.98


Nicaragua
220,454.31


Panama
74,028.73


Paraguay
162,949.11


Peru
2,816,992.77


Poland
845,070.18


Salvador
28,035.65


Uruguay
709,505.76


Venezuela
85,866.38


Yugoslavia
740,091.71

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTEE SECURITIES.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the desirability that the list of trustee securities should be revised and extended; and whether he proposes to take any such action?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on the 17th April, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the War Debt owned by this country to the United States of America at the time the debt was funded; the total amount since paid by way of interest and repayment of capital combined; and the total amount now owing, giving each of these three amounts in United States dollars?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of the British War Debt at the date of funding was 4,600 million dollars; the total amount since paid is 1,466 million dollars; the present amount is 4,368 million dollars.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Is it not clear that the settlement provided for payment in dollars with a fixed gold content, and that the fact that President Roosevelt has depreciated the dollar in no way affects or relieves our obligation?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question deals only with the amounts.

FOREIGN FILMS (INCOME TAX).

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a tax is paid by foreign film-producing companies on payments made to them by renting houses in the United Kingdom in respect of the hire and exhibition of their films in the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated on 1st June, 1933, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), the Income Tax chargeable under the provisions of the Income Tax law in respect of profits arising in this country from foreign films is, of course, duly assessed and paid.

Sir A. BAILLIE: In view of the fact that it is estimated that between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 is paid annually to foreign film-producing houses by British renting houses for the hire of films in this country, would not the right hon. Gentleman contemplate some amendment of the Income Tax laws whereby this considerable sum, so far as it represents profits, could be made subject to British taxation and contribute to the revenue of this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the existing Income Tax laws, Income Tax is not chargeable upon profits made by foreign firms who enter into contracts with British firms on ordinary commercial terms. Of course, if a British firm is acting as agent for a foreign firm, or there is any special arrangement between them under which the profits actually shown do not represent the ordinary trading profits, that matter is already covered.

Sir A. BAILLIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at least 75 per cent. of the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 which goes abroad annually in this way is actual profit, and that this acts as a subsidy to foreign film producers, to the detriment of British producers?

PROPERTY TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to
the Treasury whether, with a view to encouraging land and house owners to maintain their property in good repair he will institute a departmental inquiry with the object of finding what are the appropriate flat rates which should be granted in equity for different classes of property, as recommended in paragraph 232 of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax of 1920 (Cmd. 615)?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that Section 30 of the Finance Act of last year provided for the continuance of the scale of allowances for repairs, previously in force for purposes of Income Tax, Schedule A, for a further period ending on 5th April, 1936. In these circumstances it would be premature to take any action on the lines he suggests.

INCOME TAX (RELIEFS AND ALLOWANCES).

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. JOHN WILMOT): 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the Exchequer of restoring the Income. Tax reliefs and allowances to the level in force immediately prior to the emergency Budget of 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that the restoration of the personal allowances and reliefs to the level obtaining before the second Budget of 1931, which, as I would remind the hon. Member, included an increase in the earned income allowance from one-sixth to one-fifth as well as a decrease in the other main personal allowances, would cost about £26,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN STATES (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. LEWIS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amount in United States dollars owing to subscribers in this country in respect of loans made to the State of Mississippi and other individual States now forming part of the United States of America, which have defaulted, the amount to include interest accrued and unpaid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the information asked for in the question is not in my possession. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the Annual Reports of the Council of Foreign Bondholders, in which the best estimate available on the subject is given.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.

Sir A. WILSON: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the legality of the memorandum of association of the Royal London Mutual Assurance Company, referred to by the Committee on Industrial Assurance at page 21 of their report; and what action, if any, is proposed?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In answer to the second part, as the particular point is bound up with other recommendations of the committee, no action is proposed pending the result of the general consideration of the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLINGHAM CHEMICAL WORKS (EXPLOSION).

Mr. THORNE: 56.
asked the Home Secretary if he intends holding an inquiry into the cause of the explosion that occurred at the Billingham Chemical Works, near Stockton-on-Tees?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The circumstances of this deplorable accident are being investigated by the Factory Department, and the cause will no doubt be fully inquired into at the coroner's inquest, which has been adjourned until 4th May. I should not anticipate that any additional inquiry would be necessary, but I will consider the question further when the inquest is completed. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy with the relatives of the men.

Mr. THORNE: In the event of the Home Office carrying out the inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the inspector to examine some of the workmen who have been working round the plant?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no doubt that the fullest investigation will take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMA ACCIDENT, EAST LONDON.

Mr. THORNE: 55.
asked the Home Secretary if he has received a report from the factory inspector in connection
with the explosion that took place at the Mile End Cinema, Mile End Road, on Wednesday evening last; if he can state the number of people that were injured; if he is satisfied that the ventilating machinery was in proper working order; and what arrangements had been made for its examination owing to the long period that it had not been used?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No part of this cinema comes within the Factory Acts except a basement containing a small motor generator, but I have received a report from the London County Council as licensing authority. This report shows that no explosion occurred, but that a panic was caused because some flakes of rust fell into the auditorium from the inside of a ventilating shaft. Six persons were taken to hospital but not detained. The ventilating machinery was in proper working order at the time. The statement in the last part of the question is based on a misapprehension. I am informed that the cinema has been in continuous operation for several years. It is periodically inspected by the county council, the last occasion being in January of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).

Mr. MANDER: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what local education authorities have raised, or have under consideration, the question of raising the school-leaving age to 15?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The local education authorities for Bath, Caernarvonshire, Chesterfield, Cornwall, Plymouth, and East Suffolk have by-laws fixing the upper limit of age for compulsory school attendance at 15 years. Proposals for such bylaws have been submitted to the board during the last two years by the local education authorities for Burnley and Huddersfield, but the board were unable to approve them. The question has also been discussed, either formally or informally, between the board and the local education authorities for Cheltenham, Colne, Lowestoft, and Northumberland, and has been deferred for further consideration. It is understood that the
Gloucester City local education authority are also considering the question.

Mr. MANDER: Have the London County Council given any indication of a desire to raise the age?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not possible for boys and girls to stay at school beyond the age of 15 if they want to do so? Why should they have conscription forced upon them, which tends to develop a military mind?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

Mr. McENTEE: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the public assistance committee at Waltham-stow is taking into account the whole sum of reserve pay of men who are reservists from the fighting forces when assessing means of such men who apply for transitional payment; whether this practice is usual in all areas; and whether it has his approval?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The manner in which local authorities take reserve pay into account in administering transitional payments is within the discretion of the authorities themselves and does not require my right hon. Friend's approval.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the practice general?

Mr. HUDSON: Generally speaking, the practice of the authorities varies in accordance with the circumstances of the individual case.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the Ministry not taken any interest in the matter? Has not the statement been made that the desire of the Ministry is that reserve pay should be treated just as disabled soldiers' pensions?

Mr. HUDSON: Under the existing law, the matter is one for the decision of the authorities themselves and not for my Department.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that, where some public assistance committees have gone beyond what is allowed by
the Department, you come along and chastise them and make them keep their house in order?

Mr. HUDSON: There have been no regulations issued as far as I am aware.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider sending commissioners to places where the committees will not behave decently?

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE (SITUATION).

Mr. HANNON: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he contemplates any change in the political and economic situation in Eastern Europe consequent upon the recent exchange of views which have taken place between the French and Rumanian Governments?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Mr. PIKE: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that large areas throughout the country are now being condemned under slum-clearance orders, he will issue instructions that no such areas or properties existing thereon shall be subject to any increase in the amounts payable for rates as the result of reassessment through quinquennial revaluation; and whether he will arrange that repayment can be made to all persons, occupiers, or owners of condemned property who have been adversely affected by reassessment during the present financial year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not empowered to issue such instructions or make such arrangements as my hon. Friend suggests. Questions of assessment and liability for payment of rates are for the determination of the local authorities subject to the right of any person aggrieved to appeal to the courts.

Mr. PIKE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sir P. HARRIS: 63.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons in England and Wales displaced by slum-clearance schemes during the last 12 months have been re-housed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The re-housing accommodation provided during the year ended 31st March, 1934, to replace houses demolished under the Housing Act, 1930, or to abate overcrowding in improvement areas, was sufficient for the accommodation of 42,888 persons.

Sir P. HARRIS: How many of these were additional houses?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. CHORLTON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the letter sent from the secretary of the Collyhurst Shopkeepers Defence League with reference to the slum-clearance proposal in that district; and what he proposes to do in the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend was informed on the 12th instant, the public local inquiry necessary before the order of the local authority can be confirmed is to be held on 30th May next, which all interested parties may attend. The objections to the order will be considered by my right hon. Friend on receipt of his inspector's report.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 64.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain approved societies refuse health insurance benefits to members, although certified by their panel doctors, unless and until the applicants have been examined by the regional medical officer; and whether, seeing that this action causes unnecessary hardship, he will take steps to revise the rules of approved societies to ensure that payments of benefit are made before the members are sent to the regional medical officer?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Where an approved society desires to obtain a second medical opinion on the subject of a member's incapacity for work, it is entitled to refer the case to a regional medical officer, and it is the general practice of societies in such cases to pay benefit in respect of any period of certified incapacity up to and including the date on which the members is examined by that officer. The payment is made at as early a date as accords with the society's general administrative arrangements, and
my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be reasonable or practicable to impose on societies an obligation to make the payment in all cases before the date of the examination.

Mr. MACQUI8TEN: Is it not notorious that panel doctors are more facile than others in granting certificates owing to competition for patients?

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (SPEAKER'S LEAVE).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the Speaker of the State Council in Ceylon has been granted six months' leave of absence; and whether during such leave he is granted full salary?

The Secretary of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am aware that the State Council of Ceylon recently granted an application from the Speaker for six months' leave of absence. I have no information as to the grounds on which the application was made or as to the conditions on which the leave was granted.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it a fact that the Speaker of the State Council recently figured in a divorce case and that he has applied for six months' leave of absence, whereas Article 15 lays down that no leave can be given for more than three months except on the grounds of illness or absence from the island? In view of this fact, does my right hon. Friend intend to take any action to see that the full salary is not paid?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should certainly like notice of any question about the particular terms of Standing Orders. I know nothing about the private life of the Speaker. I was rather under the impression that the relations between the Council and the Speaker under the Standing Orders were a matter entirely for the Council.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether what the hon. and gallant Member says in the supplementary question is not confirmed by what the poet says about the island, where
 Every prospect pleases
And only man is vile.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAHAM LAND (BRITISH EXPEDITION).

Mr. LYONS: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a British expedition which is about to proceed to Graham Land under the leadership of Mr. John Rymill; whether it is supported in any way out of official or public funds; and, if so, to what extent and from which source?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. A grant of £10,000 has been made towards the expenses of Mr. Rymill's expedition from the Falkland Islands Dependencies Research and Development Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).

Mr. LAWSON: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any change has recently been made in the status of the labour department in Kenya Colony in relation to other departments of Government.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; for convenience the salaries of the officers of the Labour Section, which were formerly shown on the votes of more than one Department, have been grouped under one head of the Estimates, but no change in duties, status, or relationship to other Departments is involved.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government to see that there is no weakening in the labour department in view of the developments which are taking place in Kenya?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should suggest that the Government of Kenya are not fully alive to the importance of this matter. It would be a great mistake to advise them of something which they are quite as capable of looking into as we are.

Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that there have been very serious economies in the Department?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There have been economies in administration which have merely been necessary to balance the Budget.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the answer convey that there is going to be no weakening of the importance or status of this Department?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, there is no possible question about interfering with its importance or status. It is simply a matter rather of convenience to show salaries in one place instead of in three or four places.

Mr. LAWSON: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as a result of the development of the Kaka-mega goldfield, any increase in the activities of the Kenya Native labour department has been rendered necessary; and, if so, whether these increased activities are under the control of the inspectors of the department.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no doubt that supervision of labour conditions in the goldfields, so far as it may be necessary, is included in the normal activities of the Labour Section, acting in conjunction with the Officers of Government in the area. No increase of staff has been involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Henry Maxence Cavendish Drummond-Wolff, Esquire, for the County of Hants (Basingstoke Division).

BILLS REPORTED.

LICENSING (STANDARDISATION OF HOURS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee [13th Allotted Day.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

FIEST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the crediting of contributions in respect of persons continuing education.)

3.37 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 55, line 32, column 2, to leave out "Ten," and to insert "Twenty."
The two following Amendments also stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), and I propose to deal with the three Amendments together, because they raise the same point. The Schedule which appears on page 55 of the Bill deals with the provisions for the crediting of contributions in respect of persons who continue education after the school-leaving age. There is a provision that
the number of contributions with which a person who has so continued for any period specified in the sub-joined table may, under the regulations, be credited shall not exceed the maximum number specified in the said table as respects that period.
The maximum amounts of contributions under the Bill as shown by the Schedule are as follow:
Twelve months or more but less than eighteen months—Ten.
Eighteen months or more but less than twenty-four months—Fifteen.
Twenty-four months or more—Twenty.
The Amendment which I am now moving will have the effect of substituting for the contributions shown in the table the totals of 20, 25, and 30 respectively. I am aware that these Amendments are very elemental, and I am not over optimistic as to the Minister's acceptance of them; but they raise an important question with which I wish to deal for a few minutes, namely, the position of those children who remain at school after the school-leaving age. The Bill does nothing to alter the school-leaving age, but it serves a very useful purpose in bridging the gap between the school-leaving age, which is at present 14, and the age of 16.
A boy or girl who leaves school at the age of 14 and enters employment, and makes the necessary contributions to insurance, is now entitled at the age of 16 to insurance benefit, but the boy or girl who remains at school, voluntarily, on full time education until attaining the age of 16 cannot get credited with a maximum of 20 contributions, and, therefore, is not able to satisfy the first statutory condition for benefit—namely, 30 contributions. My Amendment, by increasing the number of credited contributions, would have the effect of putting that young person on the same level as the young person who has entered employment.
This raises a serious question of policy, and there are one or two factors which must be borne in mind. We should be careful not to penalise in any way a boy or girl who continues in full-time education after reaching the age of 14 as compared with the boy or girl who leaves school and enters employment. The obvious objection is that we should also be careful not to encourage a boy or girl to remain at school until 16 years of age and then go straight on to the dole, getting insurance benefit immediately on leaving school. There are various safeguards against that. A young person must not only satisfy the first statutory condition but other statutory conditions as well. Other factors which are relative to the considerations of this Amendment are, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Beading speech, the propable increase, indeed the certain increase, during the next few years in the number of young persons leaving school owing to the increase in the birthrate in the years following the War.
Another matter relates to the question of juvenile employment, which is a problem which we shall have to anticipate and keep in mind when we are considering the particular point raised by the Schedule. I think we should do all that we can, within reasonable limits, to encourage young persons to remain at school after 14 years of age and thereby prevent an additional burden being thrown upon the juvenile unemployment fund. May I ask the Minister one question in relation to the position of a young person who attains the age of 16, who has been in full-time education as compared with the young person of 16 who has been in employment but who has
fallen out of employment and has attended a course of instruction under Clause 14. I understand that, although attendance at a course of instruction is compulsory, there is also a compulsitor on the young person entitled to insurance benefit, by the withdrawal of Iris insurance benefit, and I should like to know what will be the position of a young person who is not entitled to insurance benefit at the age of 16, because as the Schedule now reads he will not be able to satisfy the first statutory condition. If there is any difference between the two, it will add force to the Amendment. I hope the Minister will make the position clear.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. COVE: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee support the Amendment. It means a more generous recognition of those who remain at school. But I understood from a previous Debate that the Minister was going to deal with this matter. I may have over-estimated the promise made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think he suggested that there should be consultations, and that would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment, I hope he will indicate that on Report Stage some modifications will be made. The proposals of the Bill mean that no credit can be given for any period less than 12 months. That is an important point. It seems to me that 12 months is too long to offer with any hope of a parent accepting it. I can imagine a headmaster saying to a parent that if a child remains at school for 12 months 10 stamps can be given, but that seems to me not sufficient to entice a parent to keep a child who cannot get a job at school. The period in my judgment should be considerably less. The Minister, of course, is not giving very much away, but he may consider the question of the period.

Captain BOURNE: That may be an excellent argument, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment, which deals with the question of the contributions; not the time.

Mr. COVE: I am dealing with the proposal of the Minister and making a suggestion that the period which the Minister has suggested is too long. As I understand it, a child must remain in
school for 12 months before a single stamp is credited. I hope that on the Report stage the Minister will deal with the question of the period for which education is continued, as well as the question of the number of stamps credited. The present proposal is not as good as the provision in the 1930 Act. The Report of the Royal Commission refers to the provision in the 1930 Act that a stamp should be credited for every two weeks that a child remained at school, provided the child remained at school for a minimum of 10 weeks. This Amendment would have the effect of doubling the number of stamps to be credited in respect of each of the periods mentioned in the Schedule and we naturally support that proposal, but I hope that the Minister in going into the question will not confine himself to the number of stamps but will also deal with the period which is an extremely important element. The school term would be an excellent unit of time to use in this connection. The period of 12 months would be too long for children who have gone out into industry, and become unemployed and who then desire to return to school. A shorter period would be an inducement to those children to return to school.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better raise this point on the Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill." He is getting a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. COVE: I was only raising these small points in the hope that the Minister might at some later stage give us an answer and that we might have some indication from him that this whole matter will be reconsidered. As the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) has pointed out, this matter is extremely important having regard to the numbers of children who will be leaving school in the next two years. By 1937, I believe, there will be about 440,000 more young persons between 14 and 18 in the industrial field than there are at present. It would be a good thing for those children to remain under the education system. It would be much better, in my opinion, than sending them to the junior instruction centres. I understand further that this proposal would not cost the Exchequer anything but that the whole cost would come out of the fund. Indeed a financial analysis of the part of the Bill dealing with these
juveniles shows it to be one of the meanest parts of this whole set of proposals. It is proposed to make a profit out of the contributions of these children. The financial estimate in connection with the Bill showed that there was an income of £760,000 to the fund from the joint contributions of the children, the employers and the State while the only insurance benefit coming out of that was the £230,000, due to the reduction of the benefit age to 16 years from 16 years plus 30 weeks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be repeating arguments which he brought forward on Clause 1.

Mr. COVE: I was only pointing out—quite legitimately, I think—that the Minister could make this concession without imposing any additional cost on the Exchequer. From the financial point of view it would be easy to make the concession and from the educational point of view it would be very important. If the Minister cannot accept this Amendment in this form I hope he will look into the problem with a view to devising a scheme which will induce parents to allow their children to remain at school, at any rate for a term or so longer than at present. I do not believe that the present proposals are an effective inducement to parents to keep the children at school. If the Minister considers the matter from that point of view, I think he is bound to incorporate an Amendment on these lines and he will probably also have to consider some readjustment of the periods as here proposed.

3.56 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: This Amendment appropriately comes from Scotland because I think even we Southerns recognise that there is a real enthusiasm for education in Scotland and that the Scottish people who have been pioneers in educational matters are always anxious to afford the best educational facilities for their children. Their example might well be followed in other parts of the country and, as I say, it is appropriate that an Amendment of this character should be put forward by two Members for Edinburgh. The Amendment proposes a slight encouragement to parents to resist the temptation, which is very
real in these hard times of unemployment and depression, of withdrawing their children as early as possible from school. Children when they do enter the labour market if they happen to become unemployed, should not be placed at a serious disadvantage compared with other children owing to the fact that they have been in industry, but should get the full advantage of their contributions to the fund. It would be unfortunate, however, should the idea get about that if children are withdrawn from school at the earliest opportunity, and if they become unemployed at an early age, they will be in a better position than those who have stayed on at school.
No one knows better than I do the struggle which many parents have to keep their children at school. It is not merely a matter of fees. There is the cost of maintenance, there is the cost of extra clothing which attendance at an educational institution inevitably entails and there is the loss of wages. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that this question has special significance at the present time owing to the serious problem which we shall have to face in the next two years of the inroad of additional children into the labour market. If we can induce parents to keep their children longer at school, not only will it be to the advantage of the labour market but it will also be to the advantage of this new experiment of bringing children at an earlier age under the shield of Unemployment Insurance.
It is true that this proposal involves no charge on the Exchequer. We have to consider, in this connection, first the interests of the children and secondly the interests of the fund. I suggest that it is doubtful whether the Insurance Fund will suffer at all or not by such a proposal. If an extra year at school increases the efficiency of the children and makes them more efficient units in industry the less likely they are to become unemployed. I am not sure that the fund would not be placed at an advantage by this proposal. Anyone who has studied industrial problems must have noticed that the majority of young persons from 16 to 18 who are out of work are those who have left school at the age of 14, but when you inquire into their skill at any particular trade or occupation, you are always met with the same answer, that they are unskilled, that they have had
some casual occupation which has not added anything to their industrial efficiency since they left school. So that it is not unreasonable to say that if they spend another year or 18 months at school, they are less likely to be thrown out of work, and therefore to become a charge on the Unemployment Fund. I would suggest that this Amendment, which is not a very bold or very large contribution to the problem, is, at any rate, a gesture in the right direction. It is going to encourage, to some extent, parents to leave their children longer at school as long as there is no compulsion for them to do so. Therefore, I have very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I desire to put forward one or two added reasons why the Schedule should be amended. The position, as I see it, is that the child who is kept at school for two years, and cannot get a job at the end of that time, is unable to get unemployment benefit. I suggest to the Minister that that in itself is a reason why this Amendment should be adopted. I think that it would be a terrible tragedy if parents keep their children at school for two years, and after they leave school they are to be flung on the street and secure no unemployment benefit. It is quite true they might, in certain cases, come under Part II of the Bill for assistance under the board, and there you have got a position that they might be qualifying for public assistance; but I do think that if parents have maintained a child at school for the two years, that child ought to be qualified to receive benefit. The parents, by keeping a child for the two years at school, and the child not entering the labour market and overwhelming that market, are making a contribution to the fund, just as much as if the child paid the contribution. At present a child at work paying contributions qualifies the moment it is 16 years of age. The day that it is 16, if it has 30 stamps, it gets benefit.
I say that the parents who are keeping the child at school until 16 years of age are contributing to the fund just as much as if the child made a weekly contribution, because the overcrowded labour market is thereby relieved, and, in my view, a much more substantial contribution is made to the fund than by taking
the child from school at 14, and throwing it on to the overcrowded labour market, with contributions by the State, the employer and themselves for a particular period. That contribution ought to be credited as equal to the contribution that would have been made if the child had been at work from 14 to 16. Consequently, I hope that the Minister will accept this very modest Amendment, and at least give Scottish Tories something to take hack to Scotland, because hitherto they have brought back nothing but contemptible Measures, the most miserable set of Measures that could be piled up. I know that they dragged in the Sunday Closing Bill as a recompense, but even that has been thrown aside. For the sake of giving Scottish Tory Members something to take back I think this Amendment ought to be accepted, and, in any case, it has business reasons behind it.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I would like to take the opportunity of supporting the Amendment, and joining in the appeal to the Minister favourably to consider it. We are all, I think, agreed in this House that it is very desirable that as many boys and girls as possible should stay at school after 14, especially in present circumstances. The inducement held out here is quite inadequate in my view, and in the view of those who are really in touch with education for that purpose. The 10 contributions credited for the full year or longer is a very small inducement, and I would point out that a boy or girl continuing at school for 17 months and two weeks will not be credited with any further contributions. There is very little inducement to parents to make sacrifices, which they undoubtedly do make to keep their boys and girls at school. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to consider the matter favourably. I would ask him the meaning of the heading "Maximum number of contributions to be credited." Why the maximum? Is there is a minimum? If not, I think we ought to have the matter cleared up.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: Every Member of the Committee who has spoken so far has supported the Amendment. I do not know what view the Minister is prepared to take on this
matter, but it does appear to me that there is a great deal to be said for the Schedule as drawn, and that those who are supporting the Amendment are rather arguing from two fallacies. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) made the point most clearly, I think, that this was an inducement for parents to permit the children to stay at school after 14. We are not dealing with the ethics and advantages of education. If we were desiring to offer inducements to parents to let their children remain at school, surely the medium through which to do it is not a Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. To urge that as a reason for supporting this Amendment seems to me to be begging the whole question. The second fallacy I can see is this: hon. Members appear to argue that parents keep their children at school after 14 only because they cannot find a job for them at 14. That, again, surely is not true. Parents keep their children at school after 14—and I am all for it—because they can afford to do it, or because they want to give their children such additional liberal education that when they do enter industry it will be on a somewhat higher plane, a higher status perhaps than that of the boy or girl who is thrown into the maelstrom at 14 years of age. Those are all considerations which are not part of this Bill, and my view is that the parent who can afford to keep his children at school and does so will not be looking for adventitious advantages such as this Amendment asks.
There is one other point I want to make. The question of unemployment insurance is something which is very personal indeed to the industrial worker. It is something which belongs to him, and which is prescribed for him, and it does seem to me that, as a matter of ordinary equity, a child who goes into industry at 14 and works hard for two years under conditions which are often trying, ought to have a greater vested interest in unemployment insurance than the more favoured child who, because the parent is probably better off, is kept at school until 16 and then enters industry with great advantages. I have no strong feeling one way or the other, but I think that there is a great deal to be said for the Schedule as drawn, and if the
Minister is prepared to maintain his ground, he will certainly have my support.

4.12 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): This Amendment deals with a very limited point. The question raised is whether we should amend the table in the First Schedule by increasing the maximum number of contributions to be credited from 10 to 20, from 15 to 25 and from 20 to 30. If a child could obtain 30 contributions on leaving school he would then be entitled to go straight from school on to insurance benefit. That is exactly the point where there is an obvious and a perfectly sincere difference of opinion between myself and some hon. Members who have supported this Amendment. I do not think it is to the advantage of the child that he should go straight from school on to benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He can under Part II practically come on to benefit either nationally or locally. This does not affect the matter at all.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Surely Part II deals with unemployment assistance, and between the two things there is a wide distinction. As I say, there is a perfectly sincere difference of opinion between us, and I adhere to the view I have just expressed that we should not make it possible for a child to go straight from school on to insurance benefit. In this Bill I am reinforced by the results of the examinations by extremely competent people who have considered this matter on more than one occasion. I refer, first of all, to the Report of the Royal Commission. I will deal quite shortly with the incidental point raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), but with regard to their general recommendation there is no doubt at all. The Royal Commission say, at the top of page 188:
No contribution to be credited until the juvenile has attended for 10 weeks, and 20 contributions to be the maximum to be so credited. We agree with this provision and think that it goes far to meet the third objection.
That is the view of the Royal Commission, but there is a report to which for this purpose I attach even greater importance. I have the second Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile
Employment, dated the 1st November, 1929, which was made to my predecessor, Miss Bondfield. That report is signed by a number of persons to whom we should attach importance. They say definitely in the Appendix to their report that, subject to varying conditions,
not less than five and not more than twenty contributions
should be credited. They arrive at that conclusion, I gather, for precisely the same reasons that I have supplied, because they referred to the view
that the payment of benefit as a right to young persons is demoralising.

Mr. COVE: Did they say the right to benefit was demoralising?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I said that that was one of the points that had been put before them in support of the view that I have just expressed, that a child should not go straight from school into benefit, and that, having considered it, they came to the conclusion which I have indicated, namely, that no more than 20 contributions should be credited. That is not all. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to Scotland. The Scottish National Advisory Council came to exactly the same conclusion. They said:
Finally, the Council consider that continued education should be encouraged by crediting the boy or girl provisionally at the expense of the State with unemployment insurance contributions in respect of the period spent at some full-time day school beyond the statutory leaving age at the rate of one contribution for two weeks' attendance, but subject to an age limit of 16 years and a maximum of 20 contributions.
Therefore, we have two very authoritative bodies which have, after consideration, deliberately arrived at the conclusion that the 20 contributions should be the maximum.

Mr. GUY: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the view on this point of the local authorities in Scotland.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question except that I have no reason to assume that they dissent from the view of the National Council, which contained representatives of local education authorities. There are four representatives of the education authorities in Scotland on the Council, and this is a unanimous report. Therefore, I am justified
in assuming that the representatives of the education authorities in Scotland agree with the views I have just stated. The hon. Member for Aberavon raised another point which is relevant to this and is somewhat technical. He said that the machinery of the proposals in the Bill is not the same as that recommended by the Royal Commission nor the same as that recommended in the Labour Government's Act of 1930. That is true, except-that I am not sure about the Labour Government Act. The Royal Commission said that a juvenile
shall receive a credit of one contribution in respect of each two weeks' attendance.
Under the Bill we have not provided that there shall be one contribution in respect of two weeks' attendance, but that the credit shall come in blocks of six months.

Mr. COVE: The first block is 12 months?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, but that is another point. The six-monthly blocks are contained in the table at the bottom of the first page of the Schedule. The hon. Member wants to know why we think the blocks of six months are preferable to the proposal in the Royal Commission's Report. Again, this is a matter of opinion. For all I know, the hon. Member may be right. On the other hand, I think I am right. I have taken the beet advice that I can, and I do not think that education limited to a very few weeks is likely to be so valuable to the boy as education over a period of six months or 12 months or 18 months.

Mr. COVE: That is a terrible argument against junior instruction centres.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The two things are entirely different. We are talking now of attendance at school and not at junior instruction centres. It is a direct encouragement which should not be offered, to give an advantage to a boy only attending for a few weeks or even for a month or two, and therefore we have given an incentive to the boy to remain at school for six, 12 or 18 months. The other point that was raised by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) is a technical one. If I understood rightly, what he meant was that a young person of 16, if unemployed, can be required under Clause 14 of the Bill to attend an authorised course whether he has or has not any contributions to his
credit. But there is no difference between the compulsion on persons who do not satisfy the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit and those who have the necessary contributions. With regard to the Amendment itself, I have given it the best consideration and have taken the best advice that I can, and I adhere to the view expressed in the Bill. For that reason, I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman behind him. I cannot understand why he does not agree that when a boy finishes school it should be possible for him to go on to benefit. Nobody wants to see a boy leaving school and going straight on to benefit. We want to see him go to work. If his parents have sufficient energy and vision to keep their son at school there is no reason why he should be penalised. The real truth about this matter is that there is a prejudice

against the 16-year-old boy getting benefit. One of the most energetic Debates we had on the 1930 Act was whether a boy of 15 years should have benefit and whether the benefit should be limited. The boy at 16 now, as soon as he fulfils the provisions, can get 5s. 6d. on condition that he goes to a junior instruction centre. Why should not his parents be encouraged to keep the boy at school by crediting him with the increased number of contributions suggested so that he can go on to benefit immediately? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has interpreted the feeling of the Committee upon this matter. He is certainly not giving that encouragement to parents who keep their boys at school which is so necessary in these days when there is a great volume of opinion in support of it as one of the many means of helping to meet the unemployment problem.

Question put, "That the word 'Ten' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 61.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[4.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ganzonl, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Alexander, Sir William
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Glossop, C. W. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Christie, James Archibald
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gower, Sir Robert


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarke, Frank
Granville, Edgar


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Attor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major William Philip
Grigg, Sir Edward


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Grimston, R. V.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Conant, R. J. E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bainlel, Lord
Cooke, Douglas
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hales, Harold K.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bateman, A. L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Porttm'th. C.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Setterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hartland, George A.


Blindell, James
Cross, R. H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Borodaie, Viscount
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bossom, A. C.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dickle, John P.
Hepworth, Joseph


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewt, Cedrle
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duggan, Hubert John
Hornby, Frank


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robsrt S.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Dunglass, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence


Buchan, John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)


Burnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fermoy, Lord
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jamleson, Douglas


Carver, Major William H.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Galbralth, James Francis Wallace
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerset, Thomas


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Nicholson, Godlrey (Morpeth)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Knight, Holford
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Soper, Richard


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Nunn, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Law, Sir Alfred
Palmer, Francis Noel
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon Lord (Fylde)


Leigh, Sir John
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Leigh ton, Major B. E. P.
Pearson, William G.
Stevenson, James


Levy, Thomas
Peat, Charles U.
Storey, Samuel


Lewis, Oswald
Penny, Sir George
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Liddall, Walter S.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Summersby, Charles H.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Petherick, M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)
Templeton, William P.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd G'n)
Pike. Cecil F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thompson, Sir Luke


Loder, Captain J, de Vere
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rainsbothara, Herwald
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Train, John


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tree, Ronald


Mabane, William
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McKie, John Hamilton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wayland, Sir William A.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Maitland, Adam
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wills, Wilfrld D.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Meller, Sir Richard James
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wlndtor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Milne, Charles
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Womersley, Walter James


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chlsw'k)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.



Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smith, Brace well (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sir Victor Warrender and Lord Erskine.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, John
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough. E)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

4.38 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I cannot allow that Question to go to a vote without expressing my disappointment with the attitude that
the Minister has taken with regard to the Amendment and the suggestions that have been made. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not have adopted a more accommodating attitude towards the suggestion of the Amendment. I say frankly that I suggested the
breaking up of these periods because I wanted the proposals of the Bill to be a real inducement which would have the maximum effect in keeping children at school rather than allowing them to go into the field of industry, with the grave probability in the coming years, owing to the great increase of children, of their being subject to very severe unemployment. If the Minister wants to know my opinion about the proposals which he has now forced on the Committee, it is that they are no inducement whatever to parents to keep children at school. From my experience of working-class life, I emphatically declare that the period of 12 months, which must be served, as it were, in order to get any stamps at all, is far too long a period to be any inducement whatever. I declare without fear of contradiction, and experience will prove that I am right, that to ask parents to keep their children at school for so long a period as 12 months before they get a single stamp credited to them, will not form any material inducement at all to the parents.
I am surprised that the Minister has adopted this attitude. I am beginning to think that this proposal is largely eyewash for those people who are generally termed educationists. There has been for a long time a great quarrel between those who are termed educationists and those who are industrialists, as to who should have possession of these children. The educationists have said that the children should not enter the field of insurance because once they do that it is good-bye to school and indeed good-bye to any effective demand for raising the school age. The proposals of the Government have, at least for some considerable time, prevented any chance of raising the school age, and now we have a proposal which will not do anything at all to induce these children to remain at school. It is eyewash as far as the Government are concerned; it is a sop to the educationist, by saying, "After all, although we claim them for the insurance side of the scheme and although we will not raise the school age, we are making some provision to entice the children to remain at school." That provision is a stamp after the children have been at school for 12 months. If they stay only 11 months, the period will not count at all, and there will be no stamp qualification whatever given.
I am rather surprised that the Minister, if he is really sincere about making this an effective weapon for inducing children to remain at school, was not prepared to meet us. The argument has been used that children should not go straight into insurance, that it is immoral, as it were, that children should have the benefit as an insurance right. As a matter of fact, the children who are poor and who have not been able to qualify owing to the provisions of the Bill, instead of having a right to get benefit under the insurance side of the Act, will be thrown over to the public assistance side. They must be kept; the parents must have an income to maintain them. I should have thought it would be far better, for the moral of these children, for them to be able to claim benefit as a right under the insurance side of the scheme, than for them to be thrown on to the public assistance side. It would have been far better in the interest of the children themselves.
From my experience as a scholar and as a teacher in the schools some years ago, I know that the term was the unit. It is the unit now. What happens now, and what happened when I taught classes, was that one began the year with, say, 15 pupils, and at the end of the first term the pupils probably went down by 10 or 15, and at the end of the second term and third term another 10 or 15 went, and one ended the year with, perhaps, a class of 10 or 12 or 15. That was due to the inevitable going out at the end of each term. That is the law at present. I should have thought that a scheme to credit stamps for insurance purposes could have been devised to fit in with this practice in the educational world. If the Bill had split the period up into terms the headmaster would have been able to say, "Look here, Johnny is going to leave school at the end of the term. What about the prospects for work? I do not see very good prospects. Indeed, as things are at the moment there is no possibility of his getting a job." The headmaster should then have been able to say, "If you remain at school, the next term we can see how things will straighten out," and to the parents he would have been able to say, "Then there will be stamps credited to your boy, and he will at least be able to benefit in that way." If the headmaster can only say, "Johnny must remain in school a
twelve-month," what is going to happen? The mother will say, "I cannot afford to keep the child in school for 12 months merely to gain credit stamps." Johnny leaves the school and is on the market. He will be a drug on the market, as a matter of fact, as has been repeatedly pointed out, because of the large numbers of children who will increasingly go out of school.
I am absolutely surprised that the Minister, on a relatively small though important think like this, should not have met us. He said, "We must look forward for 12 months because 12 months is an educational period, and I am advised by educationists that we must plan ahead in regard to education." As a pointed out then, that was an effective and complete condemnation of the system of junior instruction centres which the right hon. Gentleman is embodying in this Bill. As a matter of fact, the period of 12 months is not necessarily the unit. I believe, from experience of the working-class home and of the needs of the mother, from the point of view of really enticing these children to remain at school, the Minister would have been well advised to agree to a larger number of stamps being given and also to the breaking-up of the unit. The first block, as he said, is of 12 months. I do not believe there is there any inducement to remain in school, and I think the purpose of putting this Schedule in the Bill is to make believe that something has been given to the educationists, whereas in reality—and I am sure that experience will bear me out—very little has been given, and by an adjustment, what has been given could have been made much more effective. I must express my great disappointment that the Minister has not seen fit to meet us on this Amendment.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: There are two points on which I should be glad to have some information. In paragraph (2, d) of Part I of the Schedule there is a reference to "other persons responsible for the management of schools." I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education can give us any general information on this point, as to the range of schools and the types of schools which children may attend and which entitle them to obtain the credits. I presume there is some broad definition
of schools that could be given at this stage. I assume that no child would be entitled to receive credit for attendance at a school who had not been inspected or certified by the Board of Education as being properly conducted. The other point is this: I understand that consideration has been given to it, but I presume that children desiring to obtain these credits for attendance would not lose their rights if a school were closed for a prolonged period owing to some epidemic or some other reason out of the control of the authorities. I shall be glad to have some information on those two points.
With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), as to the proposals in the Bill which are sought to be regulated by the machinery of this Schedule being a sop to educationists, I do not think they are a sop for which educationists are in the least grateful. We accept the proposals in this Schedule because they are second best and better than nothing, but we think that the Government have shown a lamentable lack of imagination and courage in dealing with this aspect of the problem. Here they had an opportunity of doing something, and they have lamentably failed. It has been pointed out already that over 400,000 additional children are passing into the labour market and competing with their parents, and we had here an opportunity of completing our educational processes in this country and at the same time making a very substantial inroad upon that hard core of unemployment which has been spoken of with lamentation by all who speak on unemployment on any platform in this country.
Here was the opportunity for the Government to deal with the continuation of the Hadow Scheme, and I think it is very much to their discredit that they have not only not used it for themselves, but that they have discouraged the efforts made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). Indeed, independent Members have shown much more courage and foresight than have the Government on these matters. If these proposals are a sop, that is all that can be said for them, and we accept them because they are better than nothing, but they are not much better than nothing,
because instead of a careful, planned scheme for the youth of the country, which is essential for the future existence of this country, we are offered a sort of cat-and-mouse scheme with regard to the juvenile training centres; and for the rest, what is it? It is a mixture of casual education and casual employment.

4.52 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am very sorry that the Government have not made any concession for the children in this matter, but I do not think it is fair for hon. Members to blame the Minister of Labour as far as the children are concerned, because, after all, the Ministry of Labour are doing their very best. They have done more than any other portion of the Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is saying very little.

Viscountess ASTOR: They have done more than the Labour Government ever did—far more. I do not want to deal with the past, but they have done far more than the Labour Government, because, after all, when we remember that Labour were in opposition for years and years and that when they came in they came in on the promise of raising the school age, giving maintenance grants, and every other thing you can think of, and when they got in they stayed in for 18 months or two years and never attempted to do anything at all [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] If hon. Members had attempted to do something, they would never have gone out so quickly.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Surely the Noble Lady has not forgotten that the Labour Government introduced and carried through this House a Bill for raising the school-leaving age, which was subsequently rejected in another place.

Viscountess ASTOR: You know very well that you put in a religious Clause which—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a very interesting piece of past history, but I do not see that it has any relevance to this Schedule.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Why should we not have a little interesting part in the Debate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The rules of this House require hon. Members to discuss matters that are before the Committee, and not matters which are not relevant.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But is it not a fact that occasionally the Chairman has exercised his discretion in favour of the more interesting topic?

Viscountess ASTOR: The Labour people have attacked the Government for not doing more for the children, and I think I am in order, with your permission, Captain Bourne, in saying that they have at least done more than the Labour Government ever attempted to do. When they refer to the raising of the school age, they know very well—and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) knows it as well as I do—that they put in a contentious Clause which brought in religion, and they did that because they wanted it turned down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You may fool yourselves, but you are not fooling anybody else. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will back me up that you put in this religious Clause knowing that you—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no question of a religious Clause in this Schedule.

Mr. COVE: Is it not true to say that, with regard to the religious Clause, the Amendment was moved by a private Member of this House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better leave that subject outside the discussion.

Viscountess ASTOR: But really our friends above the Gangway have no right to talk about such things. I am deeply disappointed, not with the Minister of Labour, but with the Government, because they—

Mr. LOGAN: May I remind the Noble Lady that the Clause she speaks about is one of the very Clauses that the Opposition at that time—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) that I have just ruled that that Clause must not be discussed at this time.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not extraordinary, Captain Bourne, what a controversial subject religion is? If there is one thing in the world that ought to unite people, it is religion; yet it seems to me to be the one thing that divides all of us in a few minutes. I do not want to criticise the Minister of Labour, but I beg him to let the Government know—and I wish the Members of the House of Commons might do it by voting for the Amendment—that women are deeply disappointed in their attitude as far as juveniles are concerned. I know exactly what is going to happen with this Government. It happened with the Government before. You will wait until facts hit you in the face, and then, when it is almost too late, you will bring in a Bill to raise the school age. Why not do it now? You have plenty of people who will be behind you. You have an enormous majority, and you have the country waiting for it. You know the facts better than anybody else—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady really cannot discuss that question on this Schedule.

Viscountess ASTOR: All right, Captain Bourne, but other people have done so. I hope very much that the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, whose heart is in the right place, will go back and tell the Government that there is a real demand in the country that they should do something more constructive for juveniles than to allow thousands of them to come out of school and go into these juvenile instruction centres. We want something really constructive. We are grateful to the Minister of Labour for having brought in so splendid a Bill, and he can afford all the criticisms that come from the Opposition, because they know in their hearts that they have never brought in anything except something which was so unfair to women that the present National Government are going to set up a committee to right some of the wrongs which the Labour Minister of Health put on women. I beg the hon. Member to remember that you may fool the new Members, but you cannot fool all of us who sat and saw you make a proper mess of insurance, after the most wonderful promises and after years in the wilderness, with plenty of time to think—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see what the Minister of Health can possibly have to do with this Schedule.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Minister of Health is in the Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before us is the First Schedule to the Bill, and I hope the Noble Lady will confine her remarks to it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do beg the Minister of Labour to make the Government a little more progressive as far as juveniles are concerned.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Committee is indebted to the Noble Lady for her speech, which has given to the Debate an interest which was lacking and which did not seem likely to be recaptured. Those of us who have been attending the Committee are grateful for the fact that some interest, enthusiasm and even anger have been infused into the Debate. I will not enter into the question of what was done by the last Government, because I am afraid that the Chair will not be so lenient with me as with my predecessor. Hon. Members above the Gangway know that there is a large amount of feeling in their own movement, if not a feeling on the part of the majority, against education people having control in this matter. If it came to a card vote of their Congresses, the possibility is that the suggestion that the educationist should have control would be defeated. Everyone of us who has any connection with the movement know that to be the case.
My view has always been that the proper way to deal with this problem is to raise the school age. Be that as it may, other people take the view that the school age is not likely to be raised and, therefore, sooner than wait for a thing that may be very far off they say: "Let us tackle the problem in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour." The Minister of Labour made a pitiable effort in reply to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who put an irresistible case for parents being allowed 30 contributions for the full two years. To that suggestion there can be no answer, except that the Minister says that he is against allowing a child to pass from school to the exchange and on to unemployment benefit. He allowed the inference to be drawn, and it was cheered by his supporters,
that there is something degrading in a child going right from school, signing at the exchange and drawing benefit.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I stated that that was not merely my view but the view of two important representative bodies, namely, the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment and the Scottish Advisory Council. It was their view.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is the Minister's view that matters. He knows something not merely about education but about unemployment insurance. When a view is sought it ought to be the view not merely of an educational person but of someone who knows something about unemployment insurance.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must point out that the body to which I referred consists of five trade union representatives, and in regard to Scotland it contains three representatives of the Scottish Trade Union Congress.

Mr. COVE: They were all wrong.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon that they were wrong. They were consulted not as a body who knew something about unemployment insurance but as a body giving advice on educational matters. There might at one time have been something in the argument that a child should not claim benefit, but there is no argument now, for the reason that a child of 16 on leaving school is encouraged by the Minister to sign on at the Exchange. The only degrading thing, we are told, is that the child should get money. On four days of the week the child may stand in a queue, and he is encouraged to do it, but it is regarded as degrading if on one day he is to get 2s. or 3s. benefit. Assuming that that happened in Durham. Does the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) think that it would be degrading for the child to get 2se. or 3s. benefit? The degrading thing in the opinion of the hon. Member is that that would not be enough.
What happens in my own district? When a child leaves school there is a committee which keeps in touch with the teachers, so that the child may be asked to sign, to go to the Exchange and get
in touch with the manager and the officials. What is there degrading about the proposal that they should be credited with stamps? The only argument that could be made against our suggestion is that if the boy is credited with stamps he will sign in order to get benefit, but if he is not credited with stamps you have no motive to make him sign. If he is getting benefit he will go to the Exchange, but that is said that if he goes to sign for money he will get wrong contacts. He will come into touch with the Employment Exchange, where they have committees to look after juveniles. He will come into touch with the manager, who will see him, who will know his capacity and his bent, whether he is a good woodworker or a good arithmetician, and accordingly he will try to place him in a suitable job. If he has nothing to sign for, he immediately passes out; nobody has any contact with him. It is absurd to say that there is anything degrading in a boy going to the Exchange to sign for benefit.
I have heard Ministers make weak inconsistent childish and foolish speeches, but I have never heard any Minister make such a bad showing as the Minister of Labour on this point. A boy may get 20 stamps, and then someone kindly gets him 10 weeks work. That will be all right, but if he goes on without the 10 weeks work it is a different thing. The 10 weeks work is to make all the difference between high morality and real badness. The real way to deal with the problem is to raise the school age, to give decent maintenance grants and to see that the child is properly educated. One hon. Member says this is not a Bill to deal with education. That is true, but the Minister has put in certain qualifications for stamps. I hope that he will reconsider the point and grant the number of stamps for which we ask, so that when a boy or girl leaves school there will be unemployment benefit for them. If he grants that point he will make the Bill something like a workable Measure.
At the present time a child of 14, in work, has to pay 2d. per week. There is nothing degrading in a child of 14 paying 2d. a week, but we are told that it is degrading when a child reaches 16 that it should receive 2s. or 3s. benefit. It can pay 2d. a week at 14, but it cannot get 3s. when it is 16. From every angle the thing is ridiculous. The point has
not been met. When a parent maintains a child at school until it is 16 that parent is making a most genuine contribution towards the relief of the unemployment problem by keeping the child out of the labour market. That is a bigger contribution than paying 2d. a week at the age of 14 when a child is working. It is a real contribution towards saving money to the fund. For every child that is kept out of the labour market the parent ought to be credited with 2d. a week.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The Minister must have been impressed by the fact that this matter was raised from his own benches. There is, obviously, a considerable body of feeling in favour of it. Has the right hon. Gentleman given his final answer, or would he be prepared to consider the matter between now and the Report stage, and, if possible, give a sympathetic reply?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Division which we have had shows that there is an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of the Government's proposal.

5.14 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I should like to answer very briefly the point raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. Graham White) on paragraph (d) of the Schedule. He asked what was meant by the words, "Other persons responsible for the management of the schools." There is nothing sinister in that phrase. I think it is an omnibus phrase, introduced ex abundante cautela. While I am on my feet I might say something in answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) which was reinforced by the hon. Baronet the Member

for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I understood them to support the increase in the number of credits on the ground that it would be likely to lead to a child remaining longer at school. That is a matter of opinion, and my own view, for what it is worth, is that it might possibly have an opposite effect. A boy attending a secondary school might find, on reaching the age of 16, that no suitable occupation was available for him at the moment, and it would be desirable on many grounds that he should remain at school until some job presented itself; but if parents know that when the boy has attained the age of 16 he has sufficient contributions to his credit to qualify him to receive certain benefits, I think there will be a considerable temptation to them to say, "It will suit us very well that he should take those benefits." That is a matter of opinion, of course, but I see it as a very possible danger, and I am sure the Committee would be averse to any such stimulus being given to parents to remove the boy from school. I am glad to say that at present the tendency is for secondary school children to stay on voluntarily beyond the age of 16, and we are gradually getting the average age increased, and I should be very sorry to see any step taken which might be a stimulus in the opposite direction.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Are not parents prohibited by the terms of the contract from taking their children from school?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The contract is only up to 16 years of age.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 46.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[5.18 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Burnett, John George


Albery, Irving James
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter


Alexander, Sir William
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Blindell, James
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burodale, Viscount
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Carver, Major William H.


Applln. Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Bainiel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Christie, James Archibald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Clarke, Frank


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clarry, Reginald George


Bateman, A. L.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Cochrane, Commands Han. A. O.
Jamleson, Douglas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Colfox, Major William Philip
Janner, Barnett
Ross, Ronald D.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Conant, R. J. E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cooke, Douglas
Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Russell. Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cranborne, Viscount
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knight, Holford
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salt, Edward W.


Cross, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Crassley, A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leckle, J. A.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Davies, Maj. Gao. F. (Somerset, Ysovll)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, Harry R.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Levy, Thomas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dawton, Sir Philip
Lewis. Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dickle, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerset, Thomas


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Dunglase, Lord
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mabane, William
Soper, Richard


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Spencer. Captain Richard A.


Entwistie, Cyril Fullard
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-Super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stevenson, Jamas


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Storey, Samuel


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Strauss, Edward A.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Maitland, Adam
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Templeton, William P.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, Sir Richard James
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Train, John


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tree, Ronald


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Milne, Charles
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Granville, Edgar
Mclson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gretton-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ward, Lt. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hales, Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Pearson, William G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hanbury, Cecil
Peat, Charles U.
White. Henry Graham


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Harris, Sir Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hartland, George A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Petherick, M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto. Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pike, Cecil F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Headlam Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Withers, Sir John James


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Womersley, Walter James


Hepwortn, Joseph
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor
Worthington. Dr. John V.


Hornby, Frank
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)



Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Captain Austin Hudson and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)



James, Wing-Com. A. W. H
Ropner, Colonel L.



NOES.


Adams, O. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Maxton, James


Buchanan, Georgs
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawton, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Paling.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee.)

5.26 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: I beg to move, in page 57, line 13, to leave out "not less than three nor more than five," and to insert "six."
I am moving this Amendment in conjunction with three other Amendments standing in my name, because they all hang together: In page 57, line 24, leave out "one," and insert "three"; in line 25, leave out "one," and insert "three"; and in line 26, leave out from "workers," to end of paragraph.
The purpose of these Amendments is to increase the number and to define the composition of the committee to be set up to administer the affairs of the fund. The committee have an extremely arduous and a very extensive function to carry out. They are responsible not merely for routine work but for considering all the many points enumerated on pages 58 and 59 of the Bill, each one of which requires very detailed consideration and technical knowledge. In these circumstances I think it is necessary to have a considerable number of members, and in particular more than one to represent the point of view of the workers. The Schedule provides that the committee shall consist of a chairman and not less than three or more than five other members, and only one of them is to be a representative of the workers, who are directly interested, of course, in every one of these problems, and only one is to be a representative of the employers. There are many crosscurrents of interest affecting both employers and workers in this matter. For instance, there are the majority non-trade unionists on the one hand and the minority trade unionists on the other, and it is humanly impossible for one person
adequately to represent both those bodies on occasions when their interests conflict.
The history of this Amendment is a somewhat curious one. It was originally put upon the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard). The circumstances in which it was withdrawn are so peculiar that I shall, if I may, draw the attention of the Committee, and in particular of hon. Members sitting on those benches, to them. I feel certain that when I have developed those circumstances, the hon. Members concerned will return to their first mind and will support me in the Division Lobby.
The Amendment was not withdrawn because it was a bad one, but because it was too good an Amendment and was going to improve the Bill. That was the objection to it, not that there was any thing wrong with it. That is an extra ordinary sidelight on the way in which hon. Members opposite regard their function as an Opposition. I should have thought that an Opposition, when beaten on principle, would try to improve a Bill, although they objected to its fundamental principle, in order to make it as good as possible for their constituents. Apparently, certain hon. Members opposite, if the official statement of their party is accurate—I have no reason to doubt it—appear to take a different view. They appear to think that it is fair to use their constituents as pawns in a party game, and that the right procedure is to make the Bill as bad as possible in order to stir up strife and trouble among their constituents and to get political advantage out of it. I am well aware that there is a difference of opinion on this matter upon the benches opposite. If
rumour has it rightly, there was a majority of one.
I appeal to those who are on the benches opposite—and this includes the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street and Normanton—to get the others of their party to come round and support me in trying to make this Bill as good as possible in the interests of their constituents. I observe that before hon. Members opposite made up their minds on this matter, they decided to consult the National Joint Council. I will now quote from the official statement of their party:
This body considered the matter and expressed the opinion that on the whole it would be as well to press the Amendment, but, in doing so, the council fully realised that the question was one of Parliamentary tactics, Which could alone be decided.

[Interruption.]

Viscountess ASTOR: Shame.

Mr. REID: Have we really come to this?

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes.

Mr. REID: If the Committee will be serious for one moment, I would wish to treat this as a matter of constitutional importance. Is it to go out as the settled policy of hon. Members opposite that whenever they thoroughly object to the principle of a Measure, they are not going to make constructive Amendments? That is what they say in this statement. Going on, they say:
The party, having heard the opinions of the National Joint Council, decided, nevertheless, that the better course would be to refrain from any constructive Amendments"—
Of destructive Amendments let us have as many as you like, but refrain from any constructive Amendment—
which might be interpreted as a weakening in the opposition which was offered towards Clause 17.
Are we to take it, whenever in future we see a constructive Amendment on the Paper in the name of any hon. Member opposite, that the inference is that there is no particular objection to the principle underlying the Bill? That is the necessary inference, if this is a settled point of party policy. If we find a constructive Amendment, we may know thereby that hon. Members have no serious objection
in principle to that part of the Bill. On the other hand, when the objection in principle to any part of any Bill is serious, and we see any Amendment on the Paper, we may know that that Amendment is intended to be destructive and not constructive.
Following from that principle, we come to a very interesting result. Hon. Members opposite complain sometimes, and at first sight there might seem some justification for their complaint, that they do not receive adequate time for discussion of certain parts of this and other Bills. If the Amendments which are crowded out were constructive Amendments, one would be inclined to be a little sympathetic, but we know from the statement which has been officially issued that Amendments which have been crowded out are not constructive but are intended to be destructive. Therefore, the only complaint which hon. Members opposite have is that they are deprived of a certain number more hours in which to try to carry on a Second Reading Debate for the destruction of the principle underlying the Bill. In face of this pronouncement, nobody on this side of the House will have any more sympathy with hon. Members opposite when they make such complaints about their Amendments.
Finally, they go on—and this seems to be a strange conclusion—
It will then be the responsibility of the trade union movement.…to decide whether or not it shall be represented on the Statutory Committee.
Hon. Members come here professedly as representatives, in a special sense, of the working class. We do not accept, of course, that they are that in any sense at all, but that is their profession. Professing to have some special concern in the interests of the wage-earners, and knowing, as they do, that hundreds of thousands of those wage-earners are out of work and drawing benefit, and will continue to be so for years, at least until a General Election, after which they may be able to make changes in the law—probably not for three Parliaments to come—they desert the interests of the unemployed who are in benefit and will be in benefit between this date and the earliest date when hon. Members hope to be able to alter the law, in order to gain some sort of political capital by stirring up strife and trouble in the constituencies.
I appeal to hon. Members opposite. I am sure that those whose names were attached to this Amendment beforehand do not place the interests of class war in front of the interests of their constituents. I appeal to those very numerous hon. Members to put the interests of their constituents first and to change their minds and support me on this Amendment. It would not be fair to have a Commitee of five persons—six persons including the Chairman—only one of whom was representative of the workers. If the Minister is not able to accept the Amendment as it stands, will he at least go so far as to undertake that, if more than three persons are appointed, the next one appointed after the minimum will be an additional representative of the workers, and that the next one after that shall be an additional representative of the employers. If he could, so to speak, ear-mark those two, it would meet the point with which I have dealt. Many hon. Members opposite are in sympathy with it. It is not possible for one man sitting by himself, however able a person he is, to keep his end up, if I may use a popular phrase, in discussion as well as if he has at his elbow another representative of the same interests—

Mr. BUCHANAN indicated dissent.

Mr. RE ID: The hon. Member knows—

Mr. BUCHANAN: There are only three of us here.

Mr. REID: If the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) were deprived of the support in this House of his two colleagues, his own personal contribution to our debates would not be half so good or half so valuable.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If I were here by myself and had not the aid and advice that I have, the House would tire of me much more frequently than it does. Hon. Members tire of me as it is, but to say that I would not be capable of representing the working-class, and that I need my colleagues to keep me true to the working-class, is inaccurate. We would do that, even if there were no others here.

Mr. REID: I was only taking that as an illustration of my general proposition. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Gorbals would be every bit as diligent in his attendance here and in his
addresses to us, but I venture to think that his addresses would be neither as convincing or so well-informed if he were here by himself as they are now that he is in his present company. The same applies to one representative of the workers sitting on a board of six people, or to the unfortunate sole representative of employers, for that matter. In either case he has nobody to fall back upon and to consult. He has to do everything by himself. I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment or something very much like it, but, if the Minister does not do so, I ask hon. Members opposite to return to their first view and to support me in the Division Lobby.

5.43 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE: I hope that hon. Members are going to deal with this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has told us what has happened, but hon. Members opposite are the only people who have first-hand knowledge of what has happened. We must accept the view which has been given by my hon. Friend as completely accurate, unless hon. Members give us the benefit of their views upon what is a very important Amendment affecting a very important question about the people who are to direct this very large fund. I hope that one hon. Member at least will be willing to give the Committee the benefit of his views.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: "In vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." We on these benches make no apology for belonging to the organised trade union movement, or for being candidates of the organised working-class Movement of this country. The Amendment which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has laboured so much looked very nice on the face of it, but it is a little bit of sugar for the bird. It means the nationalisation of Non-Unionism. Sympathy with the worker would be sympathy with that worker who will not help himself by joining an organisation for his own protection. We are told that we have to make special arrangements for those men to be put upon committees who administer public funds. We make no bones about saying that, if they are not prepared to belong to the appropriate organisation, they have no locus standi in the administration of the Unemployment Fund.
If a man is not man enough to belong to the organisation of his fellow workers he ought not to be recognised by any working-class organisation. We are having an election in West Ham shortly, when we will give you an answer, such as I hope will also be given at Hammersmith today, which will indicate the attitude of the workers of this country. You may fool some of the people all the time, or all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I make no apology for the decision at which the Labour party arrived. I happened to be one of those concerned in arriving at that decision, and I took some active part in the Debate. If the Labour party had not arrived at that decision within their own party, but had been subject to some decision outside the party, the charge would have been made that we were not free men—

Viscountess ASTOR: Nor are you.

Mr. COVE: We have been free enough on this occasion, as the Noble Lady must agree. We have been free enough in the Labour party, representing our constituencies on a constitutional basis, to come to this decision as a Labour party, free from all dictation, exercising our own right; and complaint is made this afternoon that we exercised that right as a constitutional democratic party. That has given the hon. Member opposite the opportunity of a gibe. He has not only had a brief this afternoon, but a text. I do not wish to deny him the opportunity in the least, but, on the other hand, I am proud of the decision at which we arrived. Why did we arrive at that decision? Because this Bill cuts right across everything for which we stood as a Labour party in relation to the unemployed. The hon. Member knows very little about it. We have said as a Labour party that unemployment payments should be given as a right to the unemployed. We have stood for the principle of work or maintenance—

Viscountess ASTOR: You will never get it.

Mr. COVE: This is too serious a question for fooling. The Noble Lady had better keep quiet just for five minutes.
We have said, as I have understood it, that unemployment benefit should never depend upon whether the Unemployment Fund is solvent or not. We have said that the effect of unemployment upon the unemployed man, suffering through no fault of his own owing to the conditions—

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Labour party never said that.

Mr. COVE: The hon. Member may say for the sake of argument, if he likes, that in practice we were unwilling, but that point of view of the Labour party right down the years has been work or maintenance—

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: Tempered by the means test.

Mr. COVE: No, never. This, so far as I am concerned, is a matter of first-class importance, and I am going to defend what we did with all the might that I possess. I say again deliberately that, in the first place, this Bill puts the receipt of unemployment benefit on the basis of a solvent fund. It takes the administration of unemployment benefit out of the hands of Parliament. It puts Parliament in the second place; as a matter of fact, it wipes out Parliament in the administration of unemployment insurance benefit. Therefore, we have said, quite rightly, that we should not be on an undemocratic body, a body that represents a step towards Fascism and dictatorship—that we should not be represented on that body in the administration of this fund. I am proud to think that the Labour party, reviewing the whole position and the principles upon which this Bill is based—on the one side the principle of a solvent Insurance Fund, and, on the other side, the principle of throwing men over to public assistance regulations and rules, of throwing the responsibility on bodies outside Parliament—said that membership of that body would mean that we were involved in the principles that underlie this Bill.
The hon. Member opposite may generalise as much as he likes about constructive and destructive attitudes, but we looked at this Bill, and we said that it meant the taking of control outside the House of Commons, and that member-ship
of these committees meant, by implication at least, agreement with the principles embodied in the Bill. Therefore, we say that we will keep our hands clean and free, in order that—and I hope the time will come quickly—we may be able to fight in the constituencies, to bring forward with clean hands principles in opposition to those of this Bill; and, when we have won our victory on that basis, and are returned, I am confident that we shall say that this Bill must be [...]iped off the Statute Book, that the Statutory Committee must go, that the public assistance board is not the way to deal with the unemployed; and that we shall go back to our own first principle and our own policy which we have advocated for many years on the platforms of this country.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, because, unfortunately, I have another appointment. I did not know that this discussion was going to take place, and I should not have intervened but for one or two remarks of the last speaker. The Labour party are entitled to make decisions in their own party meetings. In that respect they do not differ much from the Conservatives. You gather up there, and the Prime Minister bullies you as he bullies any other party. It is the same Prime Minister. It is true that he does not always come, but he sends his delegates. He used to send his delegates up to us. It is true that his delegate now is Sir John Gilmour instead of John Clynes, but they are the same delegates—they do the same work, and there is no difference between them. I agree with the last speaker that this matter is terribly important. This Amendment does not quite cover it. I would like to see the House devote some attention to the theory of real democratic government. I have never had much quarrel with the Labour party on their principles; my quarrel with them has been on their application of the principles. I recognise that this is not the time to go into those matters, but there are one or two issues—

Mr. COVE: You agree that this is a step towards the application of those principles?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Suppose that the decision had been the other way by one vote, and that it had been decided that the Labour party should be allowed to put down this Amendment. In other words, suppose that the vote, instead of being a narrow one in favour of that, had been a narrow one against it—

Mr. COVE: May I ask the hon. Member to be perfectly fair, and accept what has been done? He is stating a supposititious case, but it is a fact that the vote has gone that way, and I ask him to give us credit for that sincerity.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am giving them the credit, but I say that it raises the issue that, if the vote had been the other way, the hon. Member would not have been allowed to represent his Division; he would have had to accept just the same thing as those whose names were attached to the Amendment. The hon. Member for St. Bollox (Mr. Leonard) was not allowed to represent his Division; he has had to withdraw. I say this to the House of Commons, that the first loyalty that I have, and must have, is to the Division I represent. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) represents a point of view of which he has no need to be ashamed, but every right to be proud. He says that his party has always stood for work or maintenance, and on two issues in that connection I challenge him. He became most indignant about the means test, but I should like to refer to a public party decision. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is not present. At Scarborough he and I were in the Labour party. I was a delegate from my union to the Labour Party Conference, and he moved at that Conference a Motion for the abolition of the means test. The Conference turned it down, and the then Lord Privy Seal was his leading opponent.
I accept the hon. Member's theory that unemployment is not a crime, and that, therefore, a person who is unemployed ought to be dealt with as needing help, and ought to get his unemployment benefit as a right; but the Labour Party Conference and the Labour party in the House of Commons have repudiated that. Let me take the Anomalies Act as an illustration. It is true that not very many people were affected by it, but it will be agreed that it used to be the
old Socialist doctrine—and I think it is a correct one—that, as long as there was one poor person, they had no right to be content. The issue was not on the numbers, but on the principle. I agree with that. While the numbers are small, the principle is the same. Seasonal workers go out and look for work and get it, but they are refused benefit, not because they are bad but because they are seasonal workers. In other words, they are penalised because of their poverty.
I am out of the Labour party because I would not do it and because I remain faithful to their creed. I cannot get trade union money now because I have never voted against the Labour policy yet. They said, "You have never voted against the policy of the party, but we have, and, in order to make you do what we have done, you must sign a document saying that, if we meet you in private, you will do the same." They wanted me to sign a document saying that if we agree in private, I must either vote with them or abstain from voting, which is cowardly. I did not sign. I know the power of your machine, and you must win. The best test is that my union has elected me to the most difficult position in it, and they are better judges than the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who sneers. They know me, and they work with me. I hear men say that the party believes in this and that when I know they have been doing it, and it is wrong. The hon. Member says I enjoy it. What about your enjoyment of me upstairs when you persecuted me in private meeting to do things. How did you enjoy it?

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I wonder whether the hon. Member is personal?

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, and I do not want to be personal. This Bill is taking the power away from Parliament. There was one occasion when the Labour people rose in the middle of the night and did not want us to have the right to vote. You took the power completely out of Parliament's hands. You took me upstairs, and I was censured, not because I had voted against it, but because I said I would. I am more moderate than ever they were. I could not be an extremist if I tried. My quarrel with them is that they said I was to sign a document that,
if they decided anything at a private meeting, I must do it. You voted for the 2s. for the children because someone went to a meeting and told you you had to do so. This issue raises the whole theory of democratic government. Sooner or later, we have to face up to this, that a pledge given to your constituents is a solemn thing, and no movement has the right to take from that pledge anything that is in it, and that pledge solemnly given to poorer people has a right to be carried out.
I will vote against the Amendment because I agree with the hon. Member fo[...] Aberavon (Mr. Cove). This is a shockingly bad Bill and it is our duty, thinking that it is going to lower the status of the poorest people, to fight it in the hope that one day they will put a decent Bill in its place which will say what the founder of the Labour party laid down as its cardinal principle when he said that the nation ought to see that the person who cannot be fitted in is given a decent, human reward. With that I fundamentally agree. They robbed the poor people under the Anomalies Act. I opposed them, and I would oppose them if they did it again.

6.7 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Debate has been one of exceptional interest, but, on the whole, it will probably be the opinion of the Committee that we might now come to a conclusion on the Amendment. The result of the Amendment would be that the Statutory Committee would consist of three representatives nominated after consultation with employers and three after consultation with the trade unions. That would be three on each side. That is not in the least what I think the constitution of the Committee should be, and I am sure I shall have the majority of the Committee with me in resisting the Amendment.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that the attitude of the Labour party on this Amendment is a matter of first-class importance. He told us that he and his friends are free men in this matter, and there are some in the House who seem to agree with him. It is very easily put to the test. Would the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) tell us whether he has been told to vote against
the Amendment. We know that he is in favour of it, because he put his name to it, and we know that he has been told to take his name off, and he has done what he was told. Has he also been told to vote against it, and is he going to vote against it? If so, it is a farce to describe him as a free man in respect of the Amendment. How can any Member be described as a free man if he puts his name to an Amendment because he believes in it and refuses to vote for it because he is told not to do so. If he will answer my questions, we shall know whether the hon. Member for Aberavon is right in describing his friends as free men.

6.9 p.m.

Major HILLS: I want to say one or two things, and I shall say them, I hope, in moderation. I want to ask the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) if the principle that he has laid down is a universal principle. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the opposition to the Bill is entitled to destroy it in any way that it can. All oppositions have exercised that right. I wish, however, to know this from the hon. Member for Aberavon. When he moves an Amendment, which apparently in his view is a constructive or improving Amendment, am I to take it at its face value or is the Amendment really a destructive one? Have the Opposition received an order that no constructive Amendment is to be moved and that the Bill is to be made as bad as possible? What do we come here for? Are we sent here to represent our constituents and to speak and vote as we think right, or are we to be dictated to by a party or any other organisation? The principle that the hon. Member has laid down is the destruction of Parliament.
I do not in the least deny the force of party, but there are considerations which rise above party and there are occasions when we have to keep our independence, and I believe the great majority of the House do, but, supporting a principle which I am very sorry to see accepted by one whom I hope I may call my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), if the action that he has taken is to be accepted as typical of the Labour party I am afraid that that principle does not apply to the Labour party. I would ask him to reflect very deeply before he commits the party which he
now leads to a point of view which I think is wrong and dangerous and destroys the activity and usefulness of Members, since that usefulness must depend very largely on the credit which the House attaches to their speeches. That credit will not be paid if the House believes that those speeches are made to order and do not express the convictions of the speaker. I have known the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street for some years. He and I used to represent different parts of the same county. I appeal to him to say something. I believe in him and in his honesty of purpose, but I believe he has made a mistake. I appeal to him as a Member of the House of Commons and as a House of Commons man of many years standing. I do not think it ought to go out that the Labour party takes the view that Members of the House of Commons are not able to express their views and by their speeches and their vote give weight to what they think right. That is a most dangerous and destructive doctrine, and I hope the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street will dispel it.

6.15 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to move, in page 57, line 14, at the end, to insert:
At least one Member of the committee shall be a woman.
I would remind the Committee that women are particularly qualified to deal with the rates of children's allowances and to decide rates of contributions particularly affecting women. There is a strong feeling in the country that women are not getting a fair return for their contributions. I am certain that hon. Members, if they inquired in their constituencies, would find that it is so. The Committee will have to examine the Anomalies Act, which is causing great difficulties. I do not know whether the Labour party who brought in this Act will still stick to their guns over this gross injustice to women. The Anomalies Act was brought in by the Labour party, and to the everlasting disgrace of the Labour party, they gave it to a woman to bring in. Have hon. Members not noticed that if there is something disagreeable to be done, men generally give it to a woman to do? The Labour party
made extravagant promises when they came into office, and, as they knew that this matter was a difficult job, they gave it to a woman. I do not think that I have ever been more sorry for anybody than I was for the late Minister of Labour. Under the Anomalies Act a married woman, who might have worked all her life and have contributed to insurance, saw all her insurance cut out unless she could prove that she had had eight consecutive weeks' work since marriage, and, what was far worse, unless she could prove that she had a reasonable chance of getting work in her own neighbourhood, which was almost impossible. The Anomalies Act threw out of insurance hundreds and, indeed, thousands of women in the industrial areas.
I am sure hon. Members realise that there are certain qualifications which can only be possessed by women who are engaged in social work. I do not wish to say a word against the men, but still, when it is necessary to inquire into domestic affairs and into the state of dependence of children, women can do the work better than men in many cases—I will not go so far as to say in all cases. I know many a man who is more an old woman than any woman, and I know some women who are a little too mannish. We want to be certain that a qualified social worker is appointed on the Committee. I think that I am not asking too much of the Minister. In fact I am certain that he will accept the Amendment, because right along he has shown a deep sympathy, I will not say for the fairer sex, and I cannot say the weaker sex, but for the other sex.

6.19 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I cannot help believing that the Minister will accept this reasonable Amendment. I have a similar Amendment in the same terms. There are many precedents for a requirement of this character. We have it in the education committees of municipal and county authorities, but it may reasonably be argued that it is not necessary to make this class differentiation, but to say that the best five persons should be selected, whether men or women. That is, of course, the case against inserting a provision of this character, but anyone who is familiar with the provisions of Unemployment
Insurance must recognise that there is a separate and definite problem for women. The Noble Lady has referred to the Anomalies Act which was brought about because of the complex and difficult problem of women in employment. It is only fair, right and just, if these new provisions are to work smoothly, and if the new body is to secure the confidence of the persons concerned, that there should be a woman on the committee to look after the interests of women. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not be content by merely saying that a woman will probably be appointed, but that he will accept the principle that it shall be laid down in the Act of Parliament that one at least of the members of the committee shall be a woman.

6.21 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: One of the most satisfactory features of the debates we have had on the Committee stage of this Bill has been the increasing value and importance which hon. Members in all parties have attached to the setting up of the Statutory Committee. The Bill specifies the various and several duties of the Committee, some of which have been indicated by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). In addition, there have been suggestions—in the list which I have before me there are 14 or 15—which it is suggested should be put before the Statutory Committee for inquiry. Therefore, obviously, in the view of the Committee as a whole, the importance of this Statutory Committee is very considerable. Indeed, when the Bill was drafted that was this conception of the committee which I hoped that the House would accept because I desired that we should set up a body to which the Minister of the day, whoever he might be, could refer for consideration and advice various difficult problems arising out of unemployment insurance. In view of the importance of the Statutory Committee and the variety of the topics with which they will have to deal, I think it is right to accept the Amendment which the Noble Lady has moved.

6.23 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: Perhaps one's first impression when the Minister makes a concession is to accept it gratefully and say no more, but I am sorry I cannot do
that on this occasion. I want to plead with him that, since the Amendment which preceded this suggesting that at least one-fourth of the members of the committee should be women has not been called, he might reconsider the matter on Report and introduce an Amendment in that form. My reason for the suggestion is that it is clear that, if the membership of the committee is only four, it will come to the same thing. If the Minister decided to make the committee of a maximum size of six there might be something in the objection because you could not have a woman and a half. I ought to have the support here of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), whom I do not now see in his place, but who spoke a few minutes ago on another Amendment. He stated that if you want to put a special point of view two can do it very much better than one. I put it to the Committee that there is a very large number of questions which will come before the committee which specially and very technically, and in a definite sense, will affect women. All the questions which will come before that body will affect women, of course, but, if you consider the size of the committee, a number of exceedingly difficult questions will arise requiring really expert knowledge.
Take the question to which the Noble Lady referred of the function of the committee to deal with special classes of applicants to whom special regulations apply. That raises the extremely vexed question of the Anomalies Act. It is true that that Act was introduced by a woman Minister, and I do not think that she could have foreseen the results when she introduced it. During the first fortnight that the Regulation under that Act was in force 74,000 women were struck off unemployment benefit, and in a year 180,000 women were struck off. There is very grave concern among many of the bodies, who at the time thought that the Act was perhaps a necessary Act, at the way it is being enforced. A large number of women who have contributed to insurance all their working life have been swept off from insurance benefit because it was argued that their marriage made it less likely for them to obtain employment in their own districts. A case came before the umpire of a woman who had worked continuously until
marriage. After marriage, and before her confinement, she was dismissed from her job, and when she desired to go back again afterwards she was refused reinstatement. She applied for unemployment benefit and was refused on the ground that, owing to her having had a child, she was not likely to be able to obtain work in her own district. If she had been an unmarried woman with a child she could not have been refused on that ground. It is the custom, I understand, to accept a claim for benefit of an unmarried woman with children. What a stimulus to public morality! You can imagine that poor married woman going away and saying, "What a fool I was to get married!"
There are an enormous number of cases of serious hardship arising from the Anomalies Act. I do not pretend that they are cases which can easily be settled, for there is a real difficulty connected with the employment of married women, and you require women who are experts in these matters to deal with it. There is the question of rates of contribution and benefit which has to be considered by the board. I hope that the Committee will ponder very carefully the question as to whether women's rates of contribution bear a fair relation to their rates of benefit. We all know that they bear a higher relation. A woman pays more in proportion to what she gets. There is a much more serious point. She makes far fewer claims on the fund than men in proportion to the number of women, and she gets no consideration on that ground. Her contributions are pooled along with the contributions of the men. On the other hand, I know that under Health Insurance, where women are heavier claimants because of the greater liability to ill-health, the women's contributions are pooled separately and they have to bear the whole of the cost of extra liability for sickness. The special point of view of women ought to be put forward by women who have made a special study of the needs and problems of their own sex.
There is the question to which the Noble Lady also referred as to whether dependants' allowances should be increased. I do not think that any Member will deny that, after all, the natural custodians of children's interests
are the women. There were a great many Members in this House who spoke strongly in favour of increased allowances in respect of the children of insured persons, and I wonder whether they have noticed their failure to soften the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject judging by the Budget. The insurance rates are to be restored to their old level, but there is to be no increase, through the Budget, of the children's allowances. If you take the least computation made by an expert body as to the cost of the minimum necessaries of life, you find that a man with three children, spending the minimum on food, clothing, cleaning and the like, has 2s. 3d. left to pay his rent and do everything else. If he has five children he has not only nothing left for rent but is 5s. 3d. short of the minimum necessary for food and clothing. Nothing more can be done under the Unemployment Bill on that subject and we, therefore, have to look to the Statutory Committee. Is it not desirable that there should be women members who will not forget the needs of the children?

Mr. CROSSLEY: On a point of Order. I cannot understand how the argument of the hon. Lady is related to women members of the Statutory Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Lady has, I think, after an elaborate argument, been referring directly to the Amendment, so she is not out of order.

Miss RATHBONE: Not in one sentence have I departed from the Amendment. The Amendment is that there should be at least one woman on the committee. The Minister has accepted it. I am appealing to him to consider on the Report stage the possibility of putting two women on the committee, and the reasons I have advanced have all been directed to pointing out that there are functions assigned to the committee which call for the presence of expert women. And two women are more desirable than one, because you cannot assume that one woman represents the whole of the female sex any more than you can assume that one man represents the male sex. There is often more difference between the points of view of a man and woman of the same class than
there is between two men or two women of a different class on questions which affect the needs and experiences of women. I asked the first woman who ever sat on the Manchester City Council, "What do you find is your principal job?" and she said "My principal job is that when the men talk, and talk and talk, forgetting that women exist at all, I just get up and say, 'Gentlemen, and the women.'" You want women on the Statutory Committee who will remember the interests of women and children and put them forward. It would work very much better if there were a woman on the committee representing the insured women's point of view, and another woman representing what I would call the impartial outsiders' point of view. If you are to have six members, then I think a one-third representation is not too much. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made, but I hope he will see his way to go a little further.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I want to protest against this concession being granted. I may be brave, but I make no apologies at all for doing so. Surely the right principle is that the best people, whoever they may be, women or men, five women or five men, should constitute the Statutory Committee. Above all, their job should not be to represent different classes; their duties should be impartial and judicial in character. Even on the Statutory Commitee it would be very important for women members to keep in order on the questions which will come before them. It seems to me that it is very seldom, no matter what the question may be, that you do not find irrelevant arguments suddenly put forward by a woman if she is a member of a committee. The poet Fletcher said:
Women should talk an hour;
After supper. 'Tis their exercise.
There is also a Japanese proverb which says that a woman's tongue is three inches long but it will kill a man six feet high.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether between now and the Report stage he will consider whether he ought not to make a further Amendment, that at least one member should be a man?

Amendment agreed to.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 57, line 16, to leave out "five," and to insert "three."
This is a proposal to limit the period of office of members of the Statutory Committee to three years instead of five years. This is a great experiment, and the powers which are given to the committee are so great and delicate that the success or failure of the Bill depends on the right kind of people being appointed. They will have to administer the whole of transitional payments which affect 1,000,000 people. The Bill has been introduced largely because the experiment of the public assistance committees has not proved to be a success. Criticisms have come from every part of the country. The administration of the means test lays upon the people responsible duties which depend on the exercise of discretion; and they perform these duties instead of the Minister. This may have nothing to do with the Statutory Committee, but it is the same principle, because they, and not the Minister, will have to administer the Bill. They are given very wide powers. They will have to consider about nine Acts of Parliament, and may make recommendations in relation to about 30 different sections. They can recommend alterations to a whole range of things affecting large numbers of people, and these recommendations have to be brought before the House by the Minister. Hon. Members know that when a matter is brought before the House in the form of an Order, it does not always receive, to put it mildly, that consideration which it merits, and indeed is very often relegated to a discussion after 11 o'clock at night.
Hon. Members should seriously consider the various sections of the various Acts upon which the Statutory Committee are called upon to make recommendations. They can discuss and consider the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit, and the disqualifications for unemployment benefit. They can also consider special provisions in respect of the discharge and treatment of marines, soldiers and airmen, and, indeed, there are about 30 different sections in nine different Acts of Parliament upon which they may make recommendations. We think that five years is too long a term for these powers to be exercised, and before the committee agrees to the proposal the matter should receive
very careful attention. Unemployment insurance, since 1920, has, I think, been the subject of about 20 different Acts of Parliament; there are at least nine major Acts of Parliament. The scheme has been shaped and re-shaped. It has been one great experiment. A proposal which seemed quite certain has, in a month's or a year's time, been proved to be unsuccessful. The Committee will agree that three years is long enough as an experimental period in order to find out where we are in this respect. These are very great powers that are being given to this body. It is almost the first time in the history of the House of Commons that such powers have been delegated to a body of this character, and those powers, if not limited severely in action, ought at least to be limited in regard to the duration of time.

6.46 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am prepared to admit that the question whether the members of the Statutory Committee should be appointed for five years or for three years is largely a matter of opinion and one upon which views may legitimately differ. My right hon. Friend has however given this matter long and careful consideration and has decided to suggest five years on the ground that it would not be easy to find persons of the standing whom we hope to appoint to the Statutory Committee, to undertake the work if the term of office were limited to three years. No one knows better than the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), with his long experience of the Department, how tremendously complicated and technical is this question of unemployment insurance and how long it takes one to become even acquainted with it. I do not profess to regard myself as a master of it but I think I have a nodding acquaintance with it and it has taken me at least two years to acquire that. This Statutory Committee will be asked to deal with a mass of technical questions and it is only reasonable if you are going to ask these men—and this woman—to learn up the subject, that they Should have the expectation of sufficient time in which to make use of knowledge that must be so painfully acquired.
The hon. Member may say that five years is too long because, if the members who are appointed in the first instance
do not prove the proper persons for the work, it will be difficult or indeed impossible to change the personnel of the committee within a reasonable time. If hon. Members look at paragraph 5 of Part I of the Schedule they will find that the Minister has taken very full powers to dismiss any member of the Statutory Committee who, in his opinion, is unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties. We think that that on the whole is a satisfactory safeguard and for those reasons, although as I say it is largely a matter of opinion, we consider that taking everything into consideration five years is the right period for which to appoint the members of the Statutory Committee.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: The Parliamentary Secretary has not given a good reason for rejecting this Amendment. He asks the Committee to believe that the Minister is going to appoint on the Statutory Committee people who have no knowledge of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I think he is asking us to believe something which we know will not be the case. The members appointed to this body will undoubtedly be people who have had some experience of the working of the Acts.

Mr. HUDSON: Not necessarily.

Mr. SMITH: Time will tell, but my experience is that the Government, when appointing a body of this kind, usually seek out those who have had experience of the work with which they will have to deal. Who can say that the representatives of the employers of this country have not some knowledge of unemployment insurance? The same remark applies to the workers side and the representatives of the Minister's Department will also be people who have had experience of this work. On the whole, I think the Parliamentary Secretary's reason is not sound. As has been said the setting up of this Statutory Committee is largely in the nature of an experiment. It is something new. It is to undertake duties which many of us believe should be retained in the House of Commons. As it is in the nature of an experiment, we consider that five years is too long and that three years ought to be substituted. In the changing
political world many things may happen in three years. Some of us hope that before three years are over we shall have a different type of mind, even at the Ministry of Labour, dealing with unemployment insurance, and we certainly think that the Committee would be wise to accept this Amendment.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I support this Amendment, and I am prepared to go into the Division Lobby in support of it. This is something more than a debating point. It has been said on many previous occasions that we are handing over to this Statutory Committee duties which have hitherto been regarded as legislative and administrative duties. We are giving this body tremendous power. In choosing the members of the committee the Minister, I have no doubt, will exercise the greatest wisdom and care but necessarily this must be largely a shot in the dark. Presumably the Minister will select people who have shown competence in other walks of life and in carrying out other duties but that consideration carries with it no certainty that those who are selected, when put into this new job and called upon to perform these new functions, will not make a hideous mess of it.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is desired to give the members of the Statutory Committee five years in which to learn their jobs. That seems to me to be a little long. It is more than any of us would be permitted in the manual trades. It is more than we would be permitted in the learned professions. It is more than we would be permitted in the Civil Service. If a man has not proved his competence inside a much shorter period, in any walk of life out he goes. Even a Government is only allowed five years as its maximum term, and few last that period. As a rule, long before a Government has reached the limit of its statutory existence, everybody is heartily sick of it—indeed Governments are generally heartily sick of themselves before the end of five years. Why then this very long period in the case of this Statutory Committee, particularly when we all recognise—at least I suppose we do—that if the members prove competent and do the work well their tenure of office is not a question of three years or five years?
The tendency will be for these to become permanent appointments, and I am sure, in spite of the hint of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), that no question would ever be raised in the House of Commons of removing members of this committee on purely political grounds. It has never been customary in this country to do that sort of thing, and I do not suppose there is any indication that it will be done in the future. If members were removed it would be on the ground of incompetence. If they are to be removed on that ground, then I think a much earlier period than five years hence would be the appropriate time at which to do it.
The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to paragraph 5 of Part I of the Schedule under which the Minister has power to remove any of these members on the ground of unfitness to continue in office or incapacity to perform the duties. That perhaps demands too much of the Minister. It raises a tremendously difficult question. Anyone who has ever been responsible for looking after the work of individuals knows the difficulty. Any half-decent human being who is trying a person on a job will hesitate to come forward and say, "This person is incapable or is unfit to continue in office," unless some grave moral delinquency, some serious physical or mental incapacity or some grave and obvious dereliction of duty is involved. The ordinary, decent-minded man will not brand a person as unfit or incompetent unless he has glaring and obvious grounds for doing so. Yet the same man who would not dream of branding a fellow human being as incapable and unfit, may know that a certain person is not performing a certain job with a reasonable degree of efficiency. There is a tremendous gap between stating that a man is net doing a job efficiently and stating that he is incapable or unfit. Therefore, I do not think that paragraph 5 is a satisfactory alternative to the Amendment.
We had the case of another board which was not performing functions as important or serious as those to be entrusted to the Statutory Committee. I refer to the British Broadcasting Corporation executive or trustees or whatever they are termed. At any rate, two vacancies arose on that body on the expiration of a term of office. There
was, presumably, no charge of unfitness or incapacity but the Government in its wisdom took the first opportunity that presented itself of removing the two members whose turn it was to retire and appointed two others in their place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Of course that was not political.

Mr. MAXTON: Well, I do not know the inner history of the matter and if I did I would not go into it now. That does not arise on the argument which I am making here. My argument is that no one would have made a charge of incapacity or unfitness against the two persons concerned but the earliest opportunity that presented itself was taken to drop those two persons and appoint two others in their places.

Mr. COVE: Why?

Mr. MAXTON: I wish my hon. Friend would not ask me to go into details which do not arise on this particular matter. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the choice of five years, rather than three, was largely a matter of chance and that there was no serious or strong view in the Minister's mind in favour of five rather than three. I hope that he will, therefore, consider the representations which have been made here this evening and agree to the shorter period.

6.59 p.m.

Major HILLS: I have come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and I came to that conclusion after comparing the power which the Minister takes in paragraph 5 of the Schedule with the term of office which is proposed in the Schedule. You appoint a man or a woman to serve on the Statutory Committee for five years. The term of office must run to five years unless the person becomes, in the opinion of the Minister, either unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing the duties. Now the Minister must act in a judicial capacity. He has not the right of a private employer. The private employer may say, "I do not care for the way in which you are doing your work, and I mean to make a change." The Minister has to act in a judicial capacity, and he has not only to know that the person is unfit or incapable, but also to convince public
opinion of that fact—a very difficult thing. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton; we all admit that a man may be unable to carry on the work he is supposed to carry on, and yet we cannot say that he is unfit or incapable. Considering especially that these duties are novel, it is a long time to give the Statutory Committee unless you have power to change them. If five years is to stand, does not my hon. Friend think that he ought to have a greater power to change? This whole experiment of the Statutory Committee all depends on the personality and the ability of its members. Here he may be fixed up with one, two or more members who he knows are not doing the work as he would like to see it done, and yet he has no power to change them.
May I, finally, point out that even if the term were reduced to three years, under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule he has power to reappoint members, and so he can get that continuity of office which I quite agree is valuable. With that power to reappoint, however, does he not think that five years is rather a long time? I pray him to increase his powers so as to get rid of the man who, he thinks, is not doing the work as it ought to be done and who yet cannot be dubbed unfit or incapable.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I said at the beginning of this discussion, in answer to the hon. Member, that this was very largely a matter of opinion. I cannot, on my own authority, accept the Amendment, but I will certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friend between now and the Report stage, tell him what hon. Members think, and see if he considers that a change should be made. With that assurance, would the hon. Member ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not very inclined to withdraw the Amendment unless this matter is to receive serious attention. A large number of matters which have been promised consideration during the passage of this Bill will, I am sure, be swamped, so that they will receive no reconsideration on the Report stage. Nevertheless, on the understanding that the hon. Member has given a very definite promise of
reconsideration, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 57, line 43, at the end, to insert:
8. There may be paid as part of the expenses of the Committee to persons attending meetings at the request of the Committee such travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time) as the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
It is fairly clear that it will be necessary from time to time for the Statutory Committee to ask various persons to give evidence before it. We think that it would be only fair, and in accordance with precedent, that such persons should have their expenses paid, and that any loss of remunerative time should be compensated.

Mr. LAWSON: It is a good thing that the Minister has seen this before the Bill comes into operation.

Amendment agreed to.

7.6 p.m.

Miss RATH BONE: I beg to move, in page 57, line 45, at the end, to insert:
(6) To assist them in specific investigations the committee may appoint persons who are not members of the committee to act on sub-committees.
I move the Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). Its object is to enable the Statutory Committee to obtain the assistance of persons who are not members of it to act on sub-committees. In view of the extremely complicated nature of the duties that are assigned to the committee, it is clear that it will have to make a large number of expert and detailed inquiries, and will probably also need to travel to different parts of the country in pursuit of its inquiries. Take any one of the headings, such as the question of the regulations applied to special people—I was turning a few minutes ago to the Anomalies Act—such as the part-time worker and the share fisherman; they all involve very technical consideration and inquiry in great detail. It will be one of the duties of the committee to see how the appeal tribunals are working and how the regulations in regard to the conditions of benefit are applied. There is a vast amount of technical work before the committee, and the membership may perhaps be only four or
five persons, with a maximum of six, including the chairman. It is clear that the committee will need assistance from outside itself.
It may be said that that assistance can be rendered by the Ministry of Labour, but if the committee is to do its work as expeditiously and thoroughly as possible, it is desirable that it should have the assistance not only of the officials at the Ministry, but also of persons who have expert knowledge of the particular subjects which come within the committee's terms of reference. Those persons ought to be added to the sub-committees of the committee for purposes of advice. I have some notion that the hon. Gentleman may be about to say that this Amendment is unnecessary because the committee already has power to appoint sub-committees, including persons who are not members. In that case, of course, I should withdraw the Amendment, but otherwise I hope that he will consider it, especially at first, when all the members are to be quite new.
We ask the Minister to consider the Amendment so that the committee, faced with this quite new and exceedingly difficult job, may have the expert assistance of persons who have made a special study of some particular problem, such as the conditions of women's work, share fishermen, the working of the appeal tribunals, and the rates of benefit and contributions, and who may be able in that way to put their assistance at the disposal of the committee in the easiest and simplest way. This would give such persons a limited amount of authority through acting as members of a sub-committee, and would considerably relieve the strain both on the committee itself and on the officials of the Ministry of Labour who, unless this Amendment is accepted, will be the only persons normally available and accredited to come to the assistance of the committee in its difficult work.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: This Amendment has been put down under a slight misapprehension as to the way in which the Committee, as we anticipate, will work. The hon. Members who put their names to it are under the impression, I think, that the Committee will have a large staff of its own for carrying out these investigations. That is not what we had in contemplation, but that the whole of the
work of securing the information for the Committee should be discharged by the existing staff of the Ministry of Labour, and that all that the Committee would be asked to do would be to consider the information provided for them. In the Amendment which this Committee of the House has just accepted, we have provided that the Statutory Committee can call any witnesses they wish to call and that the expenses of those witnesses shall be paid. We think that all the requiremens of this Amendment are covered in the Bill as it stands. The permanent staff will do all the detailed work for the Committee, and the Amendment is therefore not required.

Amendment negatived.

7.13 p.m.

Captain PEAKE: I beg to move, in page 58, line 8, at the end, to insert:


"The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920
Sub-sections (2) and (4) of section five
Employers' contributions."


The object of this Amendment is to enable the new Statutory Committee to take into its consideration important questions of principle connected with the contributions paid by employers to the fund, and the effect of the payment of these contributions upon the volume of unemployment. The subject was shortly outlined by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in a speech which he delivered towards the close of the proceedings last night, and his speech was welcomed by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who said that he regretted that there was no more time for this important subject to be discussed. I, therefore, make no apology to the Committee for opening it again this afternoon. It is not so much my intention to deal with the heavy burden which these contributions place upon the employers of labour, nor to complain—though there is justifiable cause for complaint—that these contributions, alone of all the impositions and cuts made in 1921, have not been touched by the Budget which the Chancellor introduced last week.
My object is more to try to show to the Committee that the method by which this money is taken from industry is itself a prime cause of unemployment and to express my disappointment that the Government, in introducing the Bill,
have not been able to consider any practical alternative methods of charging industry with its share of the burdens of unemployment insurance. For 16 years since the War every Government has been baffled and beaten by the unemployment problem. If we have not had a trade crisis or a slump with 2,000,000 unemployed, we have had that refractory million to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used to refer as being the hard core of the unemployment problem. We have tried transference, subsidised migration, and public works, and we are now trying tariffs. Some of these measures are obviously better than others, but the stark fact remains that ever since the War we have been putting a tax upon employment. To-day we tax employers of labour 86s. a year for every man that they take into employment in respect of the combined contribution which they have to pay for unemployment and health insurance. The capitalised value of an annual payment of 86s. is at the present time in the neighbourhood of £100. It follows, therefore, that the State is imposing a fine of £100 upon every employer who takes on an extra man in his works, and is giving a premium of £100 to every employer who puts a man on the streets.
A good many of us are concerned with the problem of the man versus the machine. We have to consider as practical business men the installation of machinery which will displace labour. It is not an easy problem. You have to consider the advantages and disadvantages, and the whole thing is very often a matter of a nice balance between the two. Here, however, the State steps in and throws 86s. a year into the balance against the man and in favour of the machine. I could quote instances, if I were not afraid of detaining the Committee too long, where the capitalised value of the contributions saved by discharged labour actually exceeds the initial cost of the machinery installed to displace it.
The Committee might think that I am arguing against any contributions by employers. I wish to make it clear that that is not my intention. I think that there is an absolutely unanswerable case for the employers contributing to unemployment insurance. As an employer of labour, I
think it fair to say that the employers gain enormously by the existence of our social services and not least—I should think most—by the existence of our system of unemployment insurance. Having said that, I contend that the method by which the money is taken from industry is the worst possible method that could be devised.
It is said that there are no practical alternatives, and that it is a simple method to charge every employer with a flat rate for every man whom he employs. I have been into this matter very closely from the point of view of the only industry of which I have any close knowledge. It is humbug to say that, so far as the coal industry is concerned, there is no practical alternative. There is a very simple, practical alternative with which anyone who has connections with the coal industry will agree. Assume that the proper contributions for the employers in the coal industry to make to the Unemployment Insurance Fund is in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000 a year. That is about what they pay to-day. Nothing would be simpler, as my hon. Friends opposite know, than to take that sum out of the industry by a levy upon output. Levies upon the output of coal are the commonest things in the industry. The Miners' Welfare Fund is raised by a levy on output, and practically the whole of the expense of workmen's compensation is raised in the same way, as are various other objects like the expenses of the schemes under the Coal Mines Act and the funds of the coalowners' associations. Therefore, so far as the coal industry is concerned, it would be perfectly simple for the new Statutory Committee to make an arrangement with the industry to assess their obligations at £1,500,000 a year and to tell them to raise that money by a levy on output. In that way, you would take away the tremendous inducement which exists for every colliery manager to introduce every possible machine and to turn every possible man on to the streets. It may be somewhat difficult as regards other industries, but I can well imagine that with the steel industry, organised as it will be—

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Is it the hon. and gallant Member's intention that the levy per ton should cover both employers' and workmen's contributions?

Captain PEAKE: No, I do not envisage the compounding of the workmen's contributions in the tonnage levy. I think it fair that the man's contribution should be paid by him if he is employed and not paid by him if he is not. I can well imagine that in the steel industry a perfectly reasonable scheme could be worked out, on similar lines to the one I have suggested, for a levy upon the output of steel. I have outlined for one industry, at any rate, a feasible alternative to the present system.
I want to express my disappointment when I first saw the Bill that, after all these months and years of inquiry and report and consideration by Royal Commissions and Governments, no practical alternative seems to have been devised to the old simple easy method of putting a penalty upon employers for putting more men on, and giving them a premium for putting men on the streets. My Amendment is of a simple nature. The Government have been unable to incorporate in the Bill any measure which does away with this admitted evil of the poll tax upon employment. All that we suggest is that this should be one of the subjects which the new Statutory Committee should be empowered to consider and on which they should be empowered to make recommendations to the Minister which might eventually result in some alteration of the law. This is a small and reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to see his way to accept it.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. and gallant Member has made a profound study of this question, and he and I have been in correspondence about it, but I would like to point out to him that the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) last night specifically instructed the Statutory Committee to consider the question of employers' contributions in the light of their incidence as a burden on industry. It was the object of the Amendment to secure a consideration of the question from that point of view. The present Amendment does not enable the Statutory Committee to do that, because it merely includes employers' contributions in Part II of this Schedule; and the only light in which the Statutory Committee can consider the various subjects
enumerated in that Schedule is in the light of their effect upon a surplus or a deficiency in the fund when that surplus or deficiency arises. Therefore, the Statutory Committee would not be able to say, "We think that this or the other alteration of employers' contributions is desirable with the object of altering the incidence of the burden on industry." This Amendment would not enable them to do that, and I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that much the best course is to do what I suggested last night, and to accept my statement that it will be open to the Minister at any time to suggest to the Statutory Committee that this is a subject that ought to be considered by them and on which he would appreciate their advice. The committee would then be free to examine the matter and to give the Minister what advice they thought fit.
The hon. and gallant Member said that he was disappointed when he saw the Bill not to find that, as a result of so many years' consideration, some alteration had been made. All of us who have studied this matter have had various ideas of what we would like to see done, but unfortunately most of those ideas, when we came to submit them to the test of practical experience, proved not to be feasible. Although it may have been disappointing to the hon. and gallant Member to find that no alteration had been made, the Royal Commission examined this matter for two years and considered innumerable schemes for altering the incidence of the contributions. The hon. Member would realise if he had read the evidence put before the Commission, as I have, that every kind of alternative was put before the Commission, and the mere fact that the Commission did not find any of them acceptable and continued the present system is a proof that the existing system, on the whole, is not too bad. I do not want to enter into an argument on that particular point. I want to assure the hon. and gallant Member that this Amendment would not enable the Committee to do what he wants them to do. I will certainly give him the assurance that later on the Committee will be fully at liberty to go into this question on the remission of the question to the Committee by the Minister.

Mr. K. LINDSAY: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the
Statutory Committee is prohibited from going into the method—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: When I heard the hon. and gallant Member move the Amendment I wondered whether I had read the Schedule correctly. In the Schedule the Statutory Committee is given power to deal with the rates of contribution. As the hon. and gallant Member went on to explain his case, it seemed that all he was asking for was that the employers' contributions should be lowered. He did not mention anything about the workmen's contributions being lowered.

Captain PEAKE: I made it clear that I was not complaining of the burden of the contribution on the employer but was complaining of the incidence of that contribution.

Mr. TINKER: There was no mention of any reduction of the workmen's contribution. The Statutory Committee can deal with it one way or the other when they get to work. If the hon. and gallant Member had made it clear to the Committee that he meant a reduction of the workmen's contribution as well as of the employers' contribution, I could have agreed with him. But he did not make that clear to me. When contributions were increased in October last, the workmen were harder hit than the employers. Their contribution was raised from 7d. to 10d. and that of the employers from 8d. to 10d. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned 86s. a year being paid by the employer. I understand that the figure is £2 3s. 4d. But the workmen have to pay that also.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Do not let us proceed further with any misunderstanding. The Statutory Committee under this Schedule already has power to consider rates of contribution, and we are only endeavouring by the Amendment to give them power to consider not only the rates but the method of assessment of the employers' contribution.

Mr. TINKER: Again, we come back to the point of the employers' contribution. I want to put the matter straight to hon. Members. Do they mean that if the employers'
contribution is lowered the workmen's contribution shall fall in the same way?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that the Amendment refers to Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920. I have not the Act before me, but I think I am right in saying that the Section deals with the question of the method or machinery by which the contribution is raised, and not with the amount of the contribution.

Mr. TINKER: I quite agree. I thought that was the meaning behind the Amendment, but neither last night on the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), nor to-day on this Amendment, have we heard that an equitable reduction of contributions was aimed at.

Lord E. PERCY: The Amendment does not touch it.

Mr. TINKER: If the Amendment meant that, I should support it. The Labour party has claimed all along that the charge for the Unemployment Fund ought to be borne by the State alone, without any contribution from employers or workmen. It should be solely a State payment and all benefits should be paid from that fund. The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) said the adoption of the Amendment would probably mean that in the coal industry more men would be employed. I do not know whether he has gone into the figures, but if he has he has found that as the employers have increased their output they have reduced the number of their workmen.

Captain PEAKE: The hon. Member is now making my point for me. At present there is an enormous premium placed upon the installation of machinery, because of the incidence of the employers' contribution.

Mr. TINKER: The installation goes into the pits, the output increases and fewer workers are required. That has been the position in the coal industry all along. To go further on those lines would probably mean that the employers would be in a better position to instal more machinery and to reduce the number of workmen still further. I fail to accept this gesture of benevolence to the workmen
if certain things are given to the employers, as proposed. The employers have not displayed anything of the kind in the coal industry up to now. The figures year after year have shown that as the output increased a smaller number of men was required. But my main point is that the workmen are bearing a greater burden than they ought to bear, and that if there is any reduction of contribution it should apply to the workmen as well as to the employers, and not go to one party only.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake). He has raised a question that is well worth consideration. As to the incidence of this particular charge, while I agree that it is well worth consideration, I do not agree that the Statutory Committee should be asked to consider it. It is an item of major policy affecting the whole question of employment and unemployment, and I think it is the Government's particular task to study the question. So far as I understand the duties of the Statutory Committee they relate particularly to the finances of the fund, its solvency or otherwise; but the question raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) last night, and by the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds to-day, relates to a different subject. This is not the body to deal with that question. It is a major question that a Government ought to decide. Whilst not opposing anything that would result in serious consideration being given to this matter, I suggest that it would be foolish to accept an Amendment which would shift from Parliament the duty of considering the matter.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Surely if this question did go before the Statutory Committee and they made a recommendation, that recommendation would have to come back to Parliament for an affirmative Resolution?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Yes, but I am very doubtful about any resolution getting adequate Debate in that particular way.

Mr. CROSSLEY: It has always struck me as an extraordinary anomaly that employers
should have to pay this poll tax, a tax directly not upon the proceeds of industry but upon the overhead charges of industry, a tax falling just as hardly upon a cotton mill at Leigh that is struggling to make ends meet, as upon, let us say, a rationalised chemical works in the south employing very few men because it has installed extremely up-to-date plant. What we are all aiming at is the employment of as many people as possible. Therefore, surely, the method of raising the employers' contribution—it is not a question of reducing it at all—should be as convenient to industry as is possible. It is an old principle of taxation that the more convenient it is to pay a tax the less onerous that tax is upon the people. Of course, all taxation is essentially bad.

Mr. TINKER: Am I to take it that the bon. Member agrees that these contributions ought to be a State charge, that the whole of the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be provided by the State?

Mr. CROSSLEY: No, I do not agree, because I do not believe that that is possible in modern circumstances and modern finance. I think you will have to get at least two-thirds of your contributions raised from the employers and the employes. It is clear that the workmen should pay their share, because they receive the benefits of the scheme. While I agree that employers should pay their contribution also, I think that the method of assessing that contribution is the worst possible method. It is a tax of £21,000,000 a year—that is including National Health Insurance—directly upon the overhead charges of industries that are often struggling to reduce their export prices. Frequently the export prices of our industrial products are raised because this is a charge which goes into the sum total of the overhead charges of industry. For that reason I want someone to take on the task of making an inquiry into the matter. The Royal Commission has been cited. I think it is possible that the Royal Commission shelved a decision on this particular point because it would have-delayed their report. Surely no one could be more suited to study this question than a body of six people with special knowledge of the subject of statutory insurance. I hope that some further guarantee will be given on the point

7.44 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: I appreciate what the Mover of this Amendment wants to do. He says that the employer shall continue to pay the same amount as now to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. In relation to the mining industries he says that at the moment payment is made for each person employed, whereas if so much per ton of coal produced was paid, that would be an incentive to employ more people, and that the present method is an incentive to instal machinery and displace workmen. I have a great deal of sympathy with that idea. But this question has been considered by various bodies and not one has yet recommended the course suggested. It is said, "Hand it over to the small Statutory Committee set up by the Bill and let them consider it." We feel that that is a major question of policy which ought not to be handed over to so small a body.
This is a question which the Government should consider themselves. We do not think this very important question should be considered by the Statutory Committee and that their recommendation, which would carry great weight in this House, should decide the course of policy. It is not that we oppose any change of method; I do not think we should quibble at a change of method, but take the mining industry. We are told by the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) that this insurance means so much per head of persons employed, but in all the ascertainments that means a certain amount per ton, and he says, "We will continue paying that amount per ton as an industry, though the personnel may be reduced or increased." Let me tell him that since this Government took office, what they have done to the mining industry is to reduce the numbers engaged in it by 70,000, and he will realise then that he is proposing to keep our contributions the same, though the personnel may be continually reduced. We have no objection to this question being considered by the right type of body, but we have a very strong objection to its being considered by this body, which we do not think is a competent body to make recommendations on so major a question of policy. Therefore, we cannot support the Amendment.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I was very much interested in the speech
of the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake), and I was glad to hear the Minister say that this is a point into which he can ask the Statutory Committee to look. All that I want to say now is that the case for the Amendment would become Very much stronger if the Statutory Committee decided, as they are empowered to do under the Bill, to recommend the inclusion of agricultural labourers and foresters in the ordinary scope of unemployment insurance. As the Committee is aware, the wages of agricultural labourers are deplorably low, and many farmers are under the temptation either to put their land under grass or, if they keep it as arable land, to use more mechanised methods and so to reduce the number of men employed on the land. If agricultural workers were brought under the insurance scheme and the burden of a contribution per head were placed on the employer, it would not only hinder our desire to increase the number of workers on the land, but would perhaps delay the time when the low wages of agricultural workers could be raised. With regard to foresters, many people do not find it necessary to give them continuous employment, and if they were insured, it might result in wholesale dismissals. The Statutory Committee have the duty of considering whether these industries should be brought under insurance, and it is doubly important therefore that the Statutory Committee should be asked to consider any amendment of the amount of contributions.

7.50 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I have always noticed in this House that if there is any proposition which is difficult and possibly dangerous, but which has quite clear merits, those who are frightened of it always argue, not that the proposal should not be considered, but that it should not be considered in the precise way that is proposed—"Oh no, this is not quite the right way; this is not quite the right body." I want to get this question considered. I should be happier about the hon. Member's statement that the Minister can always refer it to the Statutory Committee for consideration if he did not say in the same breath that because no Royal Commission has proposed it in the past, doubtless there were good reasons for that fact, land it is not worth while considering now. That sort
of argument, which was used, I think, by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Mac-donald), leaves me absolutely cold. We all know that the very last body to propose anything which involves a far-reaching change in the existing system is a Royal Commission, especially a Royal Commission which wants to get a unanimous report, and my experience is that you are more likely to get a difficult question of this kind really tackled if you ask the administrator who has to bear the administrative consequences of present defects whether he cannot suggest at least partial solutions as he goes along. More reforms are, as a matter of fact, carried out by the responsible administrator than are ever carried out by irresponsible advisers like Royal Commissions.
If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to say so, I never knew an old Parliamentary gambit used in so shameless a way as he used it. He opposed the new Clause which I moved last night and when I withdrew that Clause, I said I would rest on the Amendment which was coming forward to-day. The Parliamentary Secretary, who opposed my new Clause last night, says to-day, "Of course, there was something to be said for the new Clause, but this Amendment will not attain its object"; and in order to show that this Amendment would not attain its object, he said that the Statutory Committee could only consider this question, not with reference to the burden on industry, but with reference to the finance of the fund, if and when either a surplus or a deficit had arisen—very fine official language—but may I suggest that at any given moment either a surplus or a deficit will have arisen, and if there is one point of view from which this problem ought to be considered, and primarily considered, it is the point of view of the finance of the fund?
Our contention is that by the levy of this poll tax you are continually tending to force men out of employment, with the consequence that the liability of the fund is growing and that the contributions which the fund is receiving from this poll tax are constantly tending to be insufficient to cover the liabilities arising under the operation of that same tax. If there is one body which ought to consider that question, it is the Statutory Committee, and it is an extraordinary
thing that this one factor, which has admittedly—it has been admitted on all hands—a most serious effect on the finance of the fund, is the one question which the Statutory Committee may not consider in considering how the fund may be put in a better financial position. That seems to me to be the great argument for this being the body to consider it, though not, of course, the only body.
The fact that we say that the Statutory Committee should be empowered to take this factor, as well as other factors, into consideration does not mean that we absolve the Government from considering the question too. We, of course, expect the Government to consider the question, but I am afraid that some of the arguments from those benches, to the effect that this is not the right body to consider it, arise from the fear that possibly this body might find a more workable form of contributory insurance and, therefore, weaken the case of hon. Members opposite for a completely non-contributory system.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: You had the same case from the Government spokesman, and he is not in favour of a non-contributory scheme.

Lord E. PERCY: I know, but I thought that was mere blindness on the part of my hon. Friend, whereas it is astuteness that I attribute to hon. Members opposite. The truth of the matter is that the Parliamentary Secretary says, "No, leave it to the Government, which can consider such big issues as non-contributory insurance. Do not leave it to the Statutory Committee, which could consider this thing within the ambit of a contributory scheme in the course of the administration of that scheme." May I say one word on the question of non-contributory insurance? The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) last night, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to-day, both raised that question. I would only point out that you do not get away from a tax on employment by throwing the whole burden on the Income Tax payer, because at the present moment labour in this country is being employed, roughly speaking, by two great blocks of capital—capital employed, roughly speaking, in corporate industry, which is exposed to this poll tax that you are protesting, and capital in private hands, which is being
taxed to Income Tax without any relief in respect of the employment of that income for the purpose of employing labour and paying wages. By throwing the whole of the finance of unemployment on to Income Tax, you are merely increasing the tax which the private employer at present bears, and I believe that that taxation of employers has probably in the last 25 years been responsible for more unemployment than any other single factor in this country.

Mr. TINKER: If we accept the Noble Lord's proposition, it would spread it over the whole of industry more evenly than it is now.

Lord E. PERCY: Yes. I want the contribution of industry still to be paid, but I want it to be paid on a basis which is not a direct taxation on the workmen employed. If I could see any hope, if I could be given any sort of assurance, that this problem was in the Government's mind, that they intended to consider this problem, which they do not want to hand over for the consideration of the Statutory Committee, I should not attach any very great importance to this Amendment, but it is the same old thing over and over again. We ask for the consideration of far-reaching changes in the nature of reconstruction, but always we are told, "Well, this is not the occasion on which to consider that." The Royal Commission—and the Labour Government were quite as bad as any other Government in this matter; there has never been so reactionary and mindless a Government as the last Labour Government—did not recommend it. The Royal Commission, may I remind my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, may have heard a great deal of evidence on this subject, but they never referred to or examined any alternative scheme in their report. They left it entirely on one side, and it is the fear that the Government considered the problem so insoluble that it is better not to approach it, that it is better to acknowledge the evil and leave it there, which makes us move this Amendment. I hope that before the Debate ends we may have some assurance that there is some mental process on this subject going on in the Government.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. K. LINDSAY: I congratulate the Noble Lord on proposing an Amendment to which nobody has raised any objection. I think it is almost the first Amendment that we have had to-day to which nobody has raised any serious objection. One or two hon. Members opposite did not get the point of it at the beginning, but having got the point and having realised that it was not on the straight lines of more contribution or less contribution, but rather a different method of contribution, they are prepared to consider it and give it a trial. The whole idea of contributory insurance is in the probationary period. It is very new in this country. Between 1911 and 1925 we suddenly had a spurt and went off into insurance for health, unemployment, widows and orphans, and old age. During the last few years some of these schemes have been coming on the dole. They are not flourishing as well as we thought they might have done, and I think the time has come for a re-examination.
It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said, that thousands of commissions and committees have reported on this subject. They have not. This subject, the whole problem of the social services and the relation between insurance of industry and the insurance of basic services, has not been examined since 1909, and the time has now arrived for re-examination. I strongly agree with the Noble Lord that if this is nobody's duty, it will not be done. Therefore, if we can only get this little innocent Amendment inserted in the Schedule we might get some fresh consideration. The present method is a tax on wages and on employment. I remember, years ago in America, that Professor Collins made this point, that, assuming that it is the capitalist system you are trying to work, the State and the worker are passive. The person who is active—I do not mean aggressively active—but the person who provides the work by going out and getting it is, under this system, the employer or the company. If you put a direct tax on that initiative you thereby to that extent penalise employment and put a poll tax on wages.
I think it is very satisfactory that we have had this half-hour of Debate free from the ordinary discussion on the Bill. Every now and then somebody brings in a suggestion, as did the hon. Member for
Ormskirk (Sir T. Rosbotham) last night which would introduce something a little constructive into the Bill. There are other things that could be introduced. The trouble is to create the new machinery. It is no good having cast-iron minds. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) welcomed the proposal last night. He has had experience of unemployment insurance. We are going through a time when a complete revolution is going on in industry and it is no good sitting down with the old insurance scheme and not trying new ideas. The late Lord Melchett, Mr. Comyns Carr and others outside the House have put forward schemes. Many schemes put forward are impracticable. The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) has made a suggestion to-night in regard to the coalmining industry.
Any suggestion coming from practical-minded persons is well worth consideration. I would ask hon. Members opposite not to try always to read into a suggestion something which is not there, but try to see in it some new hope. We cannot go on with two million unemployed. It is no good saying: "Raise the school-leaving age." That will not solve the problem, although it might help. We are still up against the problem. I have never in my brief experience of the House heard one really practical suggestion for tackling this problem. To-night, however, we have an idea that has met with complete agreement, and I congratulate the Noble Lord in bringing it forward and hope the Government will accept it.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I have listened very attentively to all that has been said in support of the Amendment, and I am at a loss to find its practical value. I say that quite honestly. I had not the pleasure of hearing the Noble Lord last night, but nothing has been said by the speakers to-day to convince me that such a scheme would alleviate the unemployment problem. The discussion is purely a negative one. There is no element of construction in it. There may be some room at this stage to reconsider the whole question of social insurance. That is a matter of policy and well worth consideration, but I cannot see the merit of the present proposal. The Mover of the
Amendment made reference to the mining industry. He, like myself, perhaps knows more about that industry than any other. What does the proposition mean? I understand that there is no desire on the part of the Mover of the Amendment to reduce the total contributions of employers to insurance. If there is no desire whatsoever to reduce the total amount that is now contributed by employers to the fund, it simply means that some employers who are now obliged to pay a certain sum will be relieved of a portion of their contributions and other employers who may be escaping what is considered to be their fair share of burden may be obliged to pay more. In other words it is just a redistribution of the burden among the employers of labour. That would have no effect upon the total of unemployment or employment.
The cause of unemployment is not the 10d. per week per person that has to be contributed by employers to the fund. Rationalisation is taking place. Science and technique have been introduced into industry and it is very questionable whether it would be possible for any new industry or industries that might be devised by the Government to absorb the persons who are now being displaced by the introduction of machinery. In the mining industry we have had the introduction of coal cutting machinery and conveyors over a period of ten years or more, and in that time while we have been able to increase the output per person employed by 20 to 25 per cent., we have reduced the personnel of the industry by a like percentage. If the demand for coal is not more than, say, 200,000,000 tons per year, and in round figures that is what it is, and you have an industry that can produce now, without increasing its complement by one single man, 300,000,000 tons a year, of what help would this Amendment be to the mining industry? It would merely mean that if you place the charge on the tonnage you would get, say, 8d., 9d., or 10d. a ton on 200,000,000 tons.

Captain PEAKE: It would be 1£d.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It means that the industry would carry the same total capital burden. If you capitalised it at £100 per annum it would mean that single pits here and there which are passing through depression would be relieved, while others
where the undertaking has been rationalised by the introduction of coal cutting machinery and conveyors and other appliances would on a tonnage basis carry the heavier burden. From the industry generally the total contribution you would get would be of the same capital value as to-day. How is that going to solve the unemployment problem?
We have a National Government which came in to introduce tariffs. The ostensible reason for the tariffs was because the markets for goods in this country were taken from employers in this country by foreigners. The solution for unemployment that this Government came into being to effect was the introduction of tariffs, quotas, prohibition and the like. They have applied tariffs and having done so to prevent goods coming into the country, it is now assumed by the supporters of this Amendment that it is possible to solve the unemployment problem by a redistribution between capitalism itself in regard to the incidence of employment and unemployment.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Nobody has said that it is a solution. We say that it would be a step toward that end.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should like to believe that were possible. I believe, frankly, that this proposal would place a heavier burden upon the employés.

Mr. CROSSLEY: If the same total sum is paid in contributions by the employers, how is it going to increase the burden placed upon the employés?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think there is something behind this proposal that is not on the surface. If the State requires a sum of money to meet the burden which is falling upon its shoulders, it must have the revenue from somewhere, either from the employers, the employes or the State itself. If representative employers in this House say: "We have no desire whatsoever to reduce the burden that falls upon capital in general," what is the purpose of the Amendment?

Mr. CROSSLEY: The purpose is perfectly simple. The hon. Member's fundamental argument is wrong. There is all the difference in the world between a tax on a company which is earning big profits and employs few men and a tax on a company which is earning little or
perhaps nothing and which employs many men. We want to take the basis of the tax off the number of men employed and to arrange it in some other way. That is why we have moved the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In short, the rich capitalist must maintain the poor capitalist. Is that it?

Mr. CROSSLEY: The output in industry should be the basis of assessment rather than the number of men employed, because we want as many men to be employed as is possible.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid the hon. Member fails to see the essence of the problem. It is a marketing problem. The market is contracting from year to year. That applies to the goods in all the staple industries; I could give the actual figures for coal. I would put to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment a point of which he will have practical knowledge. He will know that whereas in pre-war years 90 per cent. of the power of the world was supplied by coal, last year not more than 72 per cent. was produced by coal. He will know that in the case of the boilers producing steam at his own colliery one pound of coal to-day produces as much steam as three pounds in pre-war years. He will know that increased engineering skill and the production of power by electricity, by gas and by oil are leading to a contraction of the world market for coal, and contraction, also, in the national demand for coal, and concurrently with these factors we have the introduction of machine-mining. Collieries are trying to live by introducing coal-cutting appliances in order to compete more effectually not against the foreigner but against their internal competitors.

Captain PEAKE: The reason why mechanisation is going on so fast in the coal industry is that there is a tax upon every miner who is employed, but there is no tax on the machine.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Mechanisation is going on in places where there is no taxation in this form.

Captain PEAKE: It is accelerated by the fact that there is this tax upon the men.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In America machinery is being introduced at a far more rapid
rate than here. The urge to the introduction of machinery is to be able to produce goods at a cheap rate to be sold in a contracting market. The urge is competition. We are faced with a contracting market not only for coal but for steel and cotton. The world market is contracting because countries which were once our best customers now compete against us. The urge to mechanisation is increasing year by year and, quite frankly, this question has now become one of policy. We do not believe in tinkering with things in the way suggested. I am amazed at the last speaker, who some time ago believed in the principles of Socialism, supporting a proposal of this kind for the stabilisation of capitalism, which is cracking before his very eyes. He will know that the only way to solve the marketing problem, which is the essence of the problem, is to give the people adequate wages with which to buy goods, to purchase the three elementary necessaries of life: food, clothing and shelter. If the people have the means they will purchase all that machinery and man can produce, but until they are furnished with adequate purchasing capacity, we shall have an ever contracting market, because with mechanisation supply is overrunning demand, and no tinkering of this kind will help to solve this great industrial and social problem.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I should not have risen to speak had not my name been referred to so often with reference to the statement I made last night, I make the same statement now, that I welcome a discussion of this question of the incidence of the taxation in the matter of unemployment insurance as I would welcome a discussion about health insurance contributions, because it is a fact that in our modern industry the weight of taxation of this kind is in inverse ratio to the ability of an industry to bear it. Some of the industries which are experiencing very difficult times are finding this a heavy burden. But what is true of this tax in regard to employers is also true of the workers in those industries. The workers in the great staple industries feel the weight of this kind of tax more than the workers in many of the lighter industries.
Since the War some industries have turned the tables upon industries in which the workers were most prosperous pre-War. In industry after industry the status, almost, of the worker has been changed by the changed conditions of modern industry. The hon. Member has put forward a suggestion, which was not made by our side at all, under which particular industries will be relieved of the incidence of this taxation but I think the tendency there will be to push the weight of that taxation back upon the worker. If we are not to have a non-contributory system, whereby the weight of these charges would fall upon the whole of the community instead of upon the respective industries, somebody would have to take the weight of that proportion of the charge which now comes upon the employers.
The hon. Member suggests a system of payment based on tonnage. How would that work out? In the case of the mining industry there might be such an addition to the costs of production that the charge indirectly would affect the wage standards, because costs in that industry do affect the wages agreements. If, under the present tripartite system, the employer is to be relieved, then either the State or the worker has to bear the extra charge. I only rose to say that I am pleased this matter has been debated, because it is high time that serious consideration was given to the question of this being made a social charge. Other great services are run for the benefit of the nation and we think that this should be borne in the same way, being spread over the whole of the nation instead of being worked as it is at the present time.
This might appear to be an academic Debate, since the Parliamentary Secretary gave a definite refusal to accept the proposal in its present form, but it is probably more than academic in its ultimate results, and it is possible that we shall hear more of the suggestion. All that I rose to say is that we welcome a discussion upon a rearrangement of the weight of the burden of unemployment insurance, as we also would in regard to health insurance. We stand for making it a national charge, and we resist any proposal of the kind for the simple reason that, if the employers are not
bearing the weight, the workers will have to bear it, as olng as there is a tripartite system.

8.27 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: This is one of the most interesting and fruitful discussions that we have had on this part of the Bill. It is more than 15 years since I began to point out to an inattentive world some of the economic unsoundness of the employers' contribution, although from a rather different point of view from that which has been raised by the promoters of this proposal. I believe that this is a point which ought to be seriously and immediately considered, but not by the Statutory Committee. Consider all the things which the Statutory Committee have to do, the immediate day-to-day questions about the rates of benefit and so on. They are in a new job; how can we expect that these six men will settle down to the consideration of an exceedingly complex question introducing a totally new principle in our system of contributory insurance? This is not the only fundamentally important and urgently needed reconstructive change that ought to be thoroughly considered and gone into. There are the questions of whether we should not replace the unscientific system of the flat-rate contribution and flat-rate benefit with graded rates of contribution, whether insurance ought to be extended to the black-coated workers, and what is to be done about the own-employer class. All those questions confront the Statutory Committee. I am not surprised that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is impatient of having them relegated to a Royal Commission which over a certain number of months is desperately anxious to produce a unanimous report and then to dissolve.
This all points to the very urgent need, in relation to this and other questions, for a body of economic experts with a core of permanent members with a continually changing circumference of ad hoc members added for particular purposes. If we had a body like that to which questions such as this could be referred, whose business it was to consider all these reconstructive changes and bring up reports to the Government, something might be done. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings looks impatient at the idea of not getting this proposal to add to the
duties of the Statutory Committee. I should like to see him try to plan out a time-table of work for the Statutory Committee during its first six months' operations, in order to see whether he would find time for this very important but necessarily long-view change. It is not a question for the Statutory Committee, but it ought to be dealt with soon by another kind of body.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 58, columns 2 and 3, to leave out lines 9 to 11.
The purpose of this Amendment is to take away from the Statutory Committee the power to alter conditions in respect to unemployment benefit. We feel a very great measure of doubt about the functions which will fall upon this committee of five persons who are to be appointed for five years to assume responsibility for the administration of the insurance fund. The committee are to determine the conditions of insurability for all those people who fall within the insurance scheme. We question very much whether the references made to the committee this afternoon do not arise from a general apprehension that this ad hoc body, without previous experience, will find it exceedingly difficult to master the very important responsibilities that are to be put upon them by this Schedule. In this connection, we express the view from this side of the House that, whether we approved of this or of previous Bills which are now Acts of Parliament, we have never questioned the capability, experience and great administrative capacity of those who advise the Minister in his Department.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him—perhaps I ought to have said this before I called the Amendment—I understand that the Opposition, out of the large mass of Amendments to the Schedule that they have on the Paper, would like to take a rather wide Debate on this one and that there are three others which they would like to move. It seems to me that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if on this Amendment we took a somewhat wide Debate on the general powers of the Statutory Committee, with, of course, the
right to divide on the other Amendments provided that they are reached before 11 o'clock.

Mr. GRENFELL: That would certainly suit my convenience, because it is very difficult to examine this Amendment without having regard to the whole scope of the duties to be carried out by the Committee. We feel that this Committee, new to its responsibilities, without experience, without the day-to-day knowledge of administration which is possessed by the Minister's advisees, will find it exceedingly difficult to master the intricacies of present legislation during the time when it has to carry out she important duties which are now to be given to it. We feel that the great drawback of the Committee is that it is to be given a kind of independent administrate authority. I do not know whether it will have the advantage of a close liaison with the advisers of the Minister, or whether it is to employ its own staff of technical advisers, or whether it is to have closer communication with the Minister himself in its day-to-day duties.
The Committee comes into existence under Clause 17 of the Bill, and the nature of its duties is more clearly defined in the Second Schedule, to which I am now referring. We find that it is to have control over the whole of the operations of the fund, and its range of responsibility is to be exceedingly wide; its powers are to be almost omnipotent. It is to be detached and remote from the work of the House of Commons, and it is to carry its very onerous responsibilities, with the possibility of all kinds of error and mistake, entirely on its own shoulders, without, as far as we know, the assistance of anybody who might be able to guide it and prevent it from making the errors that would be expected from a body of this kind in its initial stages. This new dispensation of five persons, whom we do not know, causes a great deal of apprehenson in the minds of all Members of the House. We find that the Committee is to have complete charge of the fund. I will read Subsection (3) of Clause 17, which deals with this point:
If the Committee at any time report that the Unemployment Fund is or is likely to become, and is likely to continue to be, insufficient to discharge its liabilities, or is and is likely to continue to be more than
reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, the report shall contain—

(a) recommendations for the amendment, either generally or in relation to special classes of insured contributors, of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts referred to in Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act or of the provisions of any previous order made under this Section, being such amendments as, in the opinion of the Committee are required in order to make the fund, as the case may be, sufficient or no more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities."

These people are to operate a fund the character of which is not due to them and the contributions to which are to be determined by the House of Commons. They are to administer the fund so as to provide unemployment benefit for the number of persons that the fund will maintain under conditions to be determined by them. There is no fixed volume of contributions, there is no fixed income, and there is no fixed expenditure. All these factors in the problem the responsibility for which is to be placed on this committee are uncertain factors, and the responsibility of maintaining the fund is thrown upon these people even though they have no control over the many factors which affect that responsibility. We find that all kinds of fresh problems are to be presented to this body of people, who are to start with no experience at all. No body of people in this country, nor even the Minister himself, has had the special kind of experience required for the carrying out of the responsibilities of this committee. It is true that the Minister has at his service men who have had years of experience of administration and who have an almost unlimited knowledge of the extent, distribution and character of unemployment in this country; but nobody in the Department or outside it has had any previous experience of the administration of unemployment within such circumscribed limits as those within which these people will have to operate.
They are to have regard to a fund the contributions to which at the present time consist of 2s. 6d. per week for each employed person—10d. paid by the employed person himself, 10d. paid by his employer, and 10d. paid by the State. Every year £6 10s. is to be put into the fund in respect of each individual workman, but the amount to be paid out is indeterminate. No one knows the number
of people who are to draw benefit at any given time—there are no prophets even in the Ministry of Labour. It will be necessary to rely to some extent on past experience and the capacity to forecast trade possibilities in order to determine whether at any time the fund will be sufficient to carry its responsibilities; and the control of all that is to be taken away from the House of Commons. No longer will the Minister, sympathetic as he is, no longer will the Parliamentary Secretary or the experts who assist them have any direct responsibility in this matter; the responsibility will fall upon this unknown and possibly inexperienced Statutory Committee, which is to be appointed for five years. Its members are not to be removed for five years unless they are proved to be utterly, and perhaps scandalously, incapable of carrying out their duties.
We feel that this is a very important power, and we ask in this Amendment that the power to amend the Statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit shall not be given to this Committee. The Committee will have the power of supervision, the power of balancing the claims upon and the income of the fund. We cannot in one Amendment take that responsibility away from them, but we strongly protest against the provision in the Schedule giving these people the power to alter the statutory conditions, to alter the very basis of the insurance scheme—the kind of contracts which are to form the basis of the whole insurance scheme, the undertaking given as far back as the commencement of the Act to the insured persons that they should under certain conditions be entitled to draw from time to time the benefit stated in the Act.
The Statutory Committee is to be given the power to alter those conditions, and to change, in effect, from the workmen's point of view, the whole insurance basis of the scheme. We protest very strongly against that power being given. The Statutory Committee is to be given this power in Clause 17. By the time the Bill becomes an Act, the third and fifth statutory conditions will have been amended and the Minister will hand over the power to the Statutory Committee, and say: "You can undo the work of Parliament if you like. Clauses 5 and 6 need not stand." Although Parliament
has laid it down that those changes are to be made, the Statutory Committee is to be told, "You can undo Clauses 6 and 6 and change the conditions if you like." All that is done because the Minister said these people have to balance the fund and the deciding factor in all these changes is to be the state of the fund.
Our apprehension is added to by the kind of speeches to which we have listened. An Amendment was moved by the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and supported by a coalowner. Already they make the demand that the Statutory Committee shall be given not only the authority to change the statutory conditions upon which the workpeople are entitled to benefit, but, without the consent of the House, the right to relieve the owners of any part or the whole of their contributions to the fund. It is a preposterous proposal. If we hand over the authority of Parliament, we shall find pressure of this kind being brought to bear upon the Statutory Committee. The fund, built up on contributions, must have its income assured, and there will be all kinds of temptations. These people, being placed in charge of the fund, with no opportunity except in a very limited sense for borrowing from any source, will be charged from month to month and from year to year with the solvency of the fund. They will be very sorely tempted. Let us assume that the kind of cry that we have heard to-day is responded to by the Statutory Committee.
The hon. Member made the most ridiculous suggestion that I have heard. It is unworkable, and it will not be accepted by the industry, but the Committee may be tempted. Suppose they find themselves with a little surplus in the fund, they will say, "We shall have a surplus of £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 on the next year's working. We can afford now to lessen the contributions into the fund." They will make concessions to colliery owners and the income of the fund will be reduced. Suppose that, having reduced the contributions, under the favourable conditions, if you like, operating in 1934 or 1935, in the next year there is a great rise in the unemployment figures and the fund finds itself without income to meet the increasing volume of unemployment, they will be urged to
change the statutory conditions in order that a lesser number of workpeople shall receive benefit.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: The hon. Member is misrepresenting the whole subject of the Amendment to which he is referring. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) did not suggest that there should be any reduction in the total contributed by the coal industry or by the owners. He suggested a different method of raising the total sum, and, although I did not support his Amendment, it is only just to him that that should be stated.

Mr. GRENFELL: Those who know the coal industry know that it would be unfair to charge the same tonnage levy on coal that is 20s. at the pit-head and on coal that is 9s. at the pit-head. The hon. Member does not represent anybody. He is trying to make a debating point in order to prepare the way for concessions to the employers at some later period. The point that I was making is that the fund must be maintained solvent. If the income is not sufficient to carry the burden of unemployment, there must either be a larger income, or a reduction in the benefits, or a tightening up of the conditions under which benefits are to be paid. We are very anxious on this side that power should not be given to the Statutory Committee to alter those conditions.
Let hon. Members remember how long and how strenuously we debated in the last Padliament the question of not genuinely seeking work, which was a nightmare to hundreds of thousands of unemployed workmen. It was removed by the will of the House, and it is now possible for a man to receive his unemployment benefit without having to stand up, with his hand on his heart and taking the oath, and reply to large numbers of irrelevant questions by people who treated him as an object of inquisition in order to find an opportunity of taking his unemployment benefit away from him. We very strongly resent any suggestion to return to that test. We are very anxious that no change in the statutory conditions should take place without previous Debate in the House. We feel sure that this House, a fair-minded assembly, would under any financial conditions come down strongly and
definitely against the reimposition of that test.
The Statutory Committee has no responsibility at all to the unemployed and no discretion in regard to their treatment. If they can maintain the solvency of the fund, they can adjust the benefits and also this condition and that, but, if unemployment grows, the income remains stationary and the fund becomes insolvent. They will show no sympathy and no generosity. We protest very strongly against the suggestion that these people should be subjected to any kind of pressure which might lead to the reintroduction of that miserable test of not genuinely seeking work. We hope that the Minister will be able to give the committee some assurance that there is no danger that the statutory conditions will be worsened, and that he and this House will, whatever recommendation is made by the committee in respect of this or similar matters, exercise the power, and will retain the power for any subsequent Minister representing his Department, of bringing a question to a final decision in this House before any such change takes place.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved so very well by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who has put his case, in my view, in a manner which is almost unanswerable. I would ask the Minister, who has been spending such a considerable amount of time in discussing the various provisions contained in the Bill, why from time to time we have been permitted to deal with the various matters which are contained in this particular Schedule if we were ultimately to place in the hands of the Statutory Committee the power of reversing decisions made in this House. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how the contention which we are raising in respect of these Amendments is wrong? If one looks at Part II of the Schedule one sees that it relates to:
provisions of Unemployment Insurance Acts of which Amendments may be recommended by the committee.
I agree that the word "recommended" is used, but we have to remember that once we have recommendations coming from this committee we shall find ourselves in the
position that, to a considerable extent, if not entirely, the possibility of voting against or of upsetting those recommendations will be denied to the House. If we want to make recommendations there are enough Members in this House who have sufficient knowledge of what is happening to be able to move at some later date, or to introduce, or to persuade the Government, if possible, to introduce, such measures as may be necessary to deal with the matter. As I see it, at present the Statutory Committee is going to be a bulwark as far as Amendments are concerned to which the Government will look, and will be the only source from which recommendations will be accepted. The intention of the Schedule is so comprehensive that the point which we are putting forward must be correct.
I ask hon. Members to look at the Schedule and to see what it says with regard to this Act which we are discussing, and over which we have spent a considerable amount of time. It says:
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section one, Section three, Section four, Section five, Section six, Section seven, Section eight, Section nine, Section ten.
In fact the main portions of these Sections are covered by this particular provision, which is going to be placed in the hands of the Statutory Committee. If we are so uncertain about all these Sections, we should consider them on the Report stage and come to a decision which should last for some time, and not make it incumbent upon the Statutory Committee—and I put this clearly and bluntly—to waste its time trying to upset what we in this Committee and in this House have decided prior to the foundation of the Statutory Committee itself. It means plainly that, if we are not satisfied with our own decisions, we must submit them to this Statutory Committee which will have sufficient work with which to carry on. If it performs its duties properly, it will be engaged very fully, and will have sufficient to occupy its time without delving and probing into so many Sections of one Act alone which we have spent so much time in discussing in this House. I suggest seriously that the Minister should reconsider the position with regard to this Schedule, and tell us that here is an outstanding part of the Bill which, by virtue of its peculiarities, ought to be considered
by the Committee at some stage, either soon or late.

9.1 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I confess that I am a good deal puzzled by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) who moved the Amendment, because he is usually so careful and accurate in the presentations he makes to the House. If what he said were true, and if it were the fact that we were handing over to the Statutory Committee duties which should properly be exercised by this House, then his description that this was a preposterous proposal would be a correct one. We have taken the greatest safeguards—as I will show in a moment—to secure that that will not happen, and he has misconceived the purpose, object and power of the Committee. The particular Amendment deals with "Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit." If it were the fact that the Committee could make Orders binding on this House without any opportunity or power of this House to interfere, I should be the very first to say that his contention is well founded, and I should certainly not put any such proposal in the Bill. He read, in the course of his speech, the first part of Clause 17, which deals with the setting up of the Committee, but he did not call the attention of the Committee—I am sure inadvertently—to the fact that, after a report has been received, the first duty of the Minister is to lay the report before Parliament as is provided in Sub-section (5) of Clause 17,
and in a case where the report contains recommendations for the Amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Acts or of any previons Order made under this Section, shall after consultation with the Treasury, lay before Parliament.
—the proposals which he desires to make.
A safeguard is deliberately inserted in order to avoid the very contingency which the hon. Gentleman has raised, because in Sub-section (6) it says:
If each House resolves that the draft of an Order laid before it under this Section be approved, the Minister shall make an Order.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will it be possible for this House to amend any Order which the Minister may lay before it?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It can be fully debated and discussed, and the Order
may either be approved or not. If the House disapproves of it, then the Order will not be made. The fullest rights of this House are preserved, and, I hope, rightly preserved.

Mr. SMITH: Would it be possible for any of us to move an Amendment to any Order which the Minister may lay before this House under this Section?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think it would not. I want to point out that all these contingencies have been provided against in the most explicit way by the provision that both Houses of Parliament must, by affirmative Resolution, approve the recommendations of the Committee. If they do not like them they can say so.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman reserved to himself in this Bill the right not to present to the House a recommendation made by the Statutory Committee? Suppose they brought in a recommendation that the statutory conditions should be altered in order to maintain the fund has the Minister reserved to himself the right to bring such a recommendation before the House?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes. Let me put the other side. Yesterday the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) raised a discussion on the waiting period, which he thought should be abolished. That is a matter which can be referred to by the Statutory Committee. The waiting period is six days, but if under existing legislation I wanted or the House wanted to alter it an Amendment could only be made by legislation. As hon. Members know legislation takes a long time. It means the introduction of a Bill and all the procedure which is necessary to get it through the House of Commons. Under this new procedure, if the Statutory Committee recommended that the waiting period be altered or abolished or lengthened or shortened they would make such a recommendation to the Minister, and the Minister then, instead of having to go through all the complicated and long procedure of an Act of Parliament, can place the proposal before the House and the House can vote Aye or No as to whether the waiting period should be abolished or not. The Bill introduces a simpler procedure on the various questions raised in the Schedule. I can
assure the Committee that the Statutory Committee is not intended to take away any right from Parliament but to make more easy alterations where they are found to be necessary.
Throughout the discussions we have had 10 or 12 points which hon. Members have raised. If Parliament wished to do any one of them—they may be good for all I know, I say this entirely without prejudice as to the merits—without some procedure such as this it would mean that you would have to bring in a special Bill to alter the law. I want to expedite the procedure and make it more easy for the House to express its views on these important points by the proposal in the Bill. Nothing is further from my thoughts than to take away from Parliament a right which it should have, and I would be no party to any proposal to take away the right of Parliament to express its views by affirmative Resolution on any point which may be submitted by the Minister on a recommendation by the Statutory Committee.
If the Statutory Committee performs its other duties as I feel sure it will, I believe it will be a tremendous instrument for good in the hands of any Minister to whatever party he may belong. At the present time, over and over again, you get recommendations that this course or the other course should be taken, and yon wait until you have an accumulation of suggestions, just as we had before the Royal Commission was appointed. When you have a sufficient accumulation of suggestions which appeal to the Government or to the House you appoint a Royal Commission which goes into the whole lot and then after prolonged examination of a hundred and one different points they produce a report and in due course a Bill is introduced into the House. I look upon the procedure proposed in Clause 19 (5) as something which will be of real use and advantage to the House. If I thought that the committee was going to detract or derogate from the power, authority and rights of this House I should be the last man to propose it. Quite honestly I think the hon. Member for Gower is under a misconception, but I am glad he has moved his Amendment as it has enabled me to give an explanation of a procedure which, I think, when properly understood, will commend itself to every part of the Committee.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: In the course of these Debates the Minister seems to have suggested that he takes great pride in having introduced this Bill, but there are moments when he seems to be seriously disturbed in regard to certain criticisms brought against it, and most disturbed when it is suggested that he is transferring to bodies outside Parliament powers which Parliament has previously exercised. He was very disturbed by the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). The answer he has just given is entirely unconvincing so far as the major criticism of my hon. Friend is concerned. The Minister relies a great deal on authority outside Parliament. He quoted the Royal Commission and two other Committees and said that as the Royal Commission and two other Committees had recommended a certain procedure it was good enough for him. He did not give any reasons why a change should be made; sufficient for him that three outside bodies had made the recommendation. I imagine that for the right hon. Gentleman, or a Minister with similar ideas, the Statutory Committee is going to be a very useful body. It looks as though its functions in the immediate future are going to be pleasant, it is going to have a surplus to handle, and it will not have any necessarily disagreeable tasks to perform. The scheme of the Minister appears to be actuarially sound and is likely to show a surplus, therefore, the work of the Statutory Committee will be pleasant. But can we be quite certain that the economic conditions which prevail at the moment will not get worse in the future.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Not until a Socialist Government comes in.

Mr. BROWN: That is the sort of interjection to which we are accustomed. At the moment things are getting better in spite of and not because of the Government. There would be no difficulty in proving that statement were I in order in doing so. I merely call attention to the fact, however, that the Statutory Committee at some future date may have disagreeable tasks to perform. It may have to do things which will hit very hardly sections of workers or perhaps all insured workers. It may have to reduce benefits or impose more stringent restrictions
on benefit. How convenient it will be for the Minister of Labour then to come to the House of Commons and say, "Here is a report made by the Statutory Committee and on the basis of that report I have made an Order." He will defend what he has done on the ground that the Statutory Committee has made its recommendation. This is only a device for shifting responsibility on to a body outside the House of Commons.
What is there, among all the things which the Minister has mentioned, that this Statutory Committee can do or can suggest in the future that the Ministry of Labour could not do or suggest at the present time? What material, what data in regard to unemployment insurance, can the Statutory Committee have which is not now at the disposal of the Department? Under the procedure suggested by the Minister, Parliament will have no adequate chance of discussing the matters which will come before us in such circumstances as I have indicated. The Statutory Committee's task at first may be pleasant; its task in the future may be disagreeable. Some hon. Members have suggested that it should be given further powers. We on this side would gladly deprive it of some of the powers which the Minister is conferring upon it. We hold that the Minister of Labour in any Government should carry the responsibility for these matters himself.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I was interested in the Minister's reply. In his charming way the right hon. Gentleman told us that we had no reason to be afraid as regards this Schedule or indeed anything in the Bill. All he seeks to do, he tells us, is to put into the hands of the Statutory Committee machinery which will allow that body to do certain things—the more pleasant things—much quicker than they could be done if left to the antiquated machinery of the House of Commons. How nice it would be, he suggested, if, for instance, the Statutory Committee had power to recommend a shorter waiting period and if that recommendation could be put into operation through the machinery now proposed in a relatively short time where otherwise months would be occupied in doing so. Of course, if the proposal worked like it it would be very nice. But our experience of the right hon. Gentleman's party tends in the opposite direction. The history of the Tory party—
now supported by a few stragglers and calling itself a National Government—has not been in the direction of reducing waiting periods or increasing benefits or making things better for the unemployed. No, their connection with unemployment insurance legislation has tended to make things more severe for the unemployed, to impose more hardships on the unemployed.
So far from this Statutory Committee being put into operation to make things pleasanter for the unemployed and the House of Commons we think, having regard to the history of the Tory party in these matters, that the intention is that this committee should have power to do unpleasant things in as quick a manner as possible. The Minister was shocked at the suggestion that he was taking away the power of the House of Commons. But is he not doing so? Scarcely any Measure which comes before the House of Commons for debate and discussion reaches a Third Reading stage in the form in which it is presented for Second Reading. In the course of discussion weaknesses are discovered and scores, perhaps hundreds of alterations are made, though not always as many as the Opposition would like. Perfect as the Government may consider a Measure to be on its introduction, all sorts of inaccuracies and weaknesses are liable to be discovered in the course of Debate and alterations are made accordingly. That will not be the case with these recommendations. That power of revising details is to be taken from the House. Whatever the Statutory Committee recommends, whether pleasant or unpleasant, will be presented to the House and all the House can do will be to say "Yes" or "No." They will not have the power to alter it by as much as a single comma. That is what we resent.
If there is any legislation which the House of Commons has passed since the War and which has been proved to be necessary, it is the legislation connected with unemployment. Yet it is legislation of that important character which is to be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and made subject to a mere "yea" or "nay"—a thing much to be deplored. It has been said that in the future the duties of the Statutory Committee will be relatively pleasant. I am not so sure. The committee is to be
bound by certain principles which will not make all its duties pleasant. First it has to keep the fund solvent and on a sound and stable financial basis, which means that if there is an alteration in the number of unemployed and the figure approaches 2,500,000 or 2,750,000, the committee will find itself faced with the necessity of doing some most unpleasant things. I can imagine that it would suit the Minister in that case if all he had to do was to lay on the Table the committee's suggestion and say, "Take it or leave it." He might prefer that attitude to the things which he has had to do in the past.
There is another thing. The Statutory Committee not only has to keep the fund solvent, but it also has laid on it the necessity for providing a certain amount of money per year to wipe off the debt. I think I am right in saying that that sum is £5,500,000. In view of all these considerations, with that lump sum coming out of it for a start, and with the possibility—although it is very remote and I hope, as we all do, that it does not occur—of a rise in the figures, and with the necessity of keeping the fund solvent whatever happens, the Statutory Committee may be faced with some very important decisions, decisions so important that even hon. Members on that side of the House will regret having parted with the powers which the House has had up to the present time. It is because of the harsh conditions which are now laid down for the carrying out of the fund, and because of what may happen in future, and because the committee may find itself having to be more harsh with the Unemployment Fund than has been necessary during the last year or two, that we resent parting with these powers. We say that it is utterly wrong that the House should not keep these powers. In this extremely important matter of the care of the unemployed, we ought to reserve for ourselves every scrap of power we have had in the past, so that, whatever may happen in the future, the unemployed may be sure of having justice done to them.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I was very nearly convinced by the persuasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, and I appreciate, as he said, that this is a highly convenient procedure from the point of view of the Minister
from the point of view of people concerned in this Act, and even, in certain respects, from the point of view of this House. He made very clearly the point that the Statutory Committee was to be a sort of permanent Royal Commission, and that, instead of having sporadic legislation on this subject, we should have this permanent commission in session and be able to meet the needs of the time as they arise. I agree that there are some very definite advantages to be derived from a procedure of that kind, but it seemed to me that the speech of the Minister nevertheless failed to meet the two principal criticisms directed against this Schedule. As I understood the Minister, his intention is that, instead of having sporadic legislation on this subject, we shall have continuous recommendations from the Statutory Committee. That means, surely, that legislation is to be replaced, and that Orders which are to be made on the recommendation and initiative of this committee are to take the place of Acts of Parliament. If that be so, surely very great importance must attach to the point that has been made by a number of speakers about power to amend. If, instead of proceeding by legislation, we are to proceed by means of Orders, then the loss of the power to amend means in fact a derogation from the rights and powers of this House.
Secondly, what the Minister said about the convenience of the procedure would be perfectly true if the initiative in these matters remained with the Minister and with this House. But, as I read the Bill, I think it is fair to say that, at all events in the great majority of cases, the initiative will rest with the Statutory Committee. If the committee were a body to which the Minister, or to which this House, might refer these various matters for its opinion from time to time, then the argument of the Minister would be a valid one. When, however, we set up a committee and say that we propose to act not only on the advice of that committee but also on the initiative of that committee, then it will be very difficult in future to obtain any alteration in our unemployment insurance legislation unless it is first of all recommended by this Statutory Committee. For those reasons, I do not think that the arguments advanced by the Minister were
valid arguments, and I for one propose to go into the Lobby in support of these Amendments.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: The Minister, in his speech referring to these powers, thought that he was not doing anything unusual. He said that if he thought that this Statutory Committee would make Orders that were binding upon the House, then he would never think of giving it such powers. Although the Statutory Committee does not make any Orders that are binding upon the House, yet in effect they are, because the House will not have the opportunity, when the Orders come before it, of discussing and amending them. A3 has been said again and again, the House will have either to accept or to reject the Order. That is curtailing the power of the House to such an extent that I venture to say that the Minister does not realise the revolutionary change that he is making. In the past there has scarcely been a year in which the House has not been faced with an Unemployment Bill. So far as the Unemployment Fund was concerned, nothing could be done, no change could be made, unless the Minister of Labour—whoever he was—came to the House and brought in a Bill making provision for that change. That system has had the advantage that, with Unemployment Bills coming before the House so often, year after year, it has kept hon. Members in touch with the fund and made them bear in mind so many things in connection with the fund—kept them, in fact, always up to date in their knowledge of the fund.
Now the Minister is making a change which hon. Members, on the other side side do not yet realise. Instead of the Minister coming to the House with a Bill when any change has to be made in the rates of benefit or of contribution, or in any of the powers which are given in this Schedule, after this Bill is passed and these powers are given to the Statutory Committee, hon. Members of this House will not see another Unemployment Bill for long years. They will lose touch with the fund. It will not be necessary, in view of the enormous powers given to this Statutory Committee, for the Minister to come to the House with another Unemployment Insurance Bill. Hon. Members opposite do not realise the implication of this change.
This Government will not always be in power, and the present Minister of Labour will not always hold that office. It may be that these powers will be in force when the next Government comes into office. Let us suppose for a moment that in two years' time the Labour Government comes into power. That is a possibility. A Labour Minister will be sitting there. When the Statutory Committee makes a recommendation to him he will not bring it before the House if he does not agree with it, but when the Statutory Committee makes a recommendation that meets with his approval he will bring an Order before the House.

Mr. DAVID REID: Does the hon. Member suggest that a Minister of Labour would not be honest?

Mr. BATEY: No, but a Labour Minister will have different views on unemployment insurance from the present Minister. Hon. Members on the other side think that they are tying up the present Opposition in giving these vast powers to the Statutory Committee, and they imagine that the Committee will use those powers in keeping with the views of the present Minister of Labour who can make an Order and bring it before the House; but in two years' time another Minister of Labour with different views may be in office and the Orders may be altogether different from the Orders which will be brought in by the present Minister. Hon. Members should see the implications that are in the Schedule. We may complain at the moment that while we can discuss the Orders we cannot amend them, but when hon. Members opposite are in Opposition they will find themselves in the same position.
I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour wants to give these enormous powers to the Statutory Committee. What will the Ministry of Labour do in future when the Minister has shed his powers and conferred them on the Statutory Committee? A few years ago hon. Members, when they were dissatisfied with decisions on unemployment cases, could send the cases to the Minister of Labour and put questions on the Order Paper about them. They cannot do that to-day. The Minister has rid himself of that responsibility, and
Members have been robbed of this privilege.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the hon. Member point out how the Minister is relieved of this duty in connection with the Statutory Committee, and will he indicate how a Member will be deprived under this new system of the opportunity of bringing matters and complaints before the Minister?

Mr. BATEY: I was rather speaking of the practice to-day compared with the practice a few years ago when Members could bring unemployment cases before the Minister. I have got the Minister of Labour to send cases back to the Umpire. Members have not got these privileges to-day. We never see on the Order Paper now questions about unemployment cases and complaints of decisions that have been given in regard to benefit and other matters. I suggest that the Minister is endeavouring to get clear of more of the things that now rest upon his shoulders by putting the responsibility on the Statutory Committee.
In 1925, when the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and full of economy, he told the House that it was proposed to abolish three Departments in the interest of economy, and he selected what he thought were the three weakest Departments, namely, Mines, Transport and Pensions. If the right hon. Gentleman were Chancellor when this Bill comes into operation, I can imagine him looking upon the Ministry of Labour and saying, "That is the weakest Department, for all the work is now done by the Statutory Committee and all the power rests with that committee." The Statutory Committee will have to keep in touch with the fund, the contributions, the benefits and the number of people on the fund, and I can imagine the Chancellor saying that as the Ministry of Labour has shed all these powers and handed them over to the Statutory Committee the Ministry should be abolished. I would like the Minister to tell us what will remain to justify a Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary when the powers contained in this Schedule are given to the Statutory Committee.
The Minister said that there had been an accumulation of proposals and
suggested alterations to the fund, and that because of those accumulations of proposals it had not been possible to deal with them. The present proposals, he said, would be an easy and quick way of dealing with any accumulation of proposals with regard to the fund. It may be a quick way, but it will not be a good way. Any way that prevents the Members of the House from thoroughly debating any alteration in the Unemployment Insurance Fund may be a quick way, but it will not be a satisfactory way. We had far better have the longer way and do the thing as a majority of the House thinks it should be done. The Minister said that it will be possible to deal with the question of the waiting period, or domestic service or the black-coated workers. Suppose the Statutory Committee reports as to whether the waiting period should be six days or be abolished. Suppose the Minister accepts their report and places an Order before the House. If he came before the House with a Bill instead of an Order-in-Council, hon. Members would be entitled to put down amendments to the proposal. I wish that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would leave the Minister of Labour alone. I want the right hon. Gentleman to listen to me. If the Minister were to bring a Bill before the House it would be possible for hon. Members to move an Amendment that would make the waiting period three days, assuming that the Minister did not agree to the abolition of the waiting period. Under an Order the House would have no such opportunity; it would be a question either of the period being abolished or of retaining the six days. I submit that that is an injustice. On all these things hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of submitting Amendments to the proposals.
I wonder whether hon. Members have read this Schedule. It is well worth serious attention. The Statutory Committee can deal with everything in connection with the fund. It can completely alter the fund. As a matter of fact the House has been spending a lot of time discussing Clause after Clause dealing with the fund. It was not necessary to consider any of the Clauses dealing with
the fund, because this Statutory Committee has sufficient power under the Schedule to deal with everything that we have been discussing. It can make recommendations on all the Clauses that we have discussed. But I think it is a much better way for the House to spend its time discussing Clause after Clause that affects the fund. It is better for the fund and better for the people who receive benefit from the fund. The Statutory Committee has power to deal with the rates of contributions and the rates of benefit. We have been saying that the position of the fund at the moment would warrant something being done with the rates of contribution. There is no guarantee that the Statutory Committee will make recommendations to decrease the contributions. Once this Statutory Committee is set up it will always have its eye upon keeping the fund as strong financially as possible; it will always want to have as big a balance as possible. The members of the committee would not be men if they did not.

Mr. LOGAN: There are two other speakers.

Mr. BATEY: If there are two other speakers I will stop. I was rather filling in time, but I will sit down.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. CONANT: I cannot help thinking that the real purpose of this Amendment lies rather deeper than has yet been expressed. Surely the fundamental reason for this and subsequent Amendments which have the effect of taking away some of the advisory powers that we seek to give to the Statutory Committee, lies in the genuine difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government as to the value of an insurance scheme. Rightly or wrongly the Opposition think that an insurance scheme is useless. The Government believe that it is valuable to the people of this country. A second reason, which my right hon. Friend the Minister did not mention, for which this Committee is being set up, is to ensure that the insurance scheme shall be maintained in a solvent condition. We have seen in the past that when the management of insurance has been left entirely in the hands of this House, and all the details and all the initiative have come from this House, in practice the scheme has lost tall its appearance of
solvency. It is only natural that that should happen, because the Government of the day, whoever they may be, naturally take an optimistic view of the effect of their own policy. They say, "Our policy is going to reduce unemployment," and they miscalculate the basis of the fund.
During the period of office of the last Government and partly during the period of office of the previous Conservative Government, that has resulted in a continuous increase in the debt of the fund, until we found, when the present Government came into office, a debt of something like £115,000,000. It is in order that the fund may be maintained in solvency, and

in order that the insurance principle may be maintained, that it is necessary that powers of an advisory character should be given to this Statutory Committee, and that the initiative of recommending changes and taking a view which is not definitely the view of the Government should rest with the Statutory Committee. I feel, therefore, that in resisting this Amendment the Minister is taking the wise course land is supporting the real insurance principle.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 63.

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[9.55 p.m.


Aeland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Albery, Irving James
Dickie, John P.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Drewe, Cedrie
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duckworth, George A. V.
Knight, Holford


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Knox, Sir Alfred


Atholl, Duchess of
Duggan, Hubert John
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Dunglass, Lord
Law Sir Alfred


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leckle. J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lewis, Oswald


Bateman, A. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Liddall, Walter S.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Graham, Sir Ernest


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Llewellin, Major John J


Blindell, James
Fox, Sir Gilford
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Borodale, Viscount
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bossom, A. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Boulton, W. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louls Halle
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goff, Sir Park
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
McKie, John Hamilton


Browne, Captain A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Burghley, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burnett, John George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.
Magnay, Thomas


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Carver, Major William H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hales, Harold K.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington,. E.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hanbury, Cecll
Milne, Charles


Christie, James Archibald
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitcheson,G. G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Colfox, Major William Philip
Heilgers, Captsln F. F. A.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hepworth, Joseph
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cooke, Douglas
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hornby, Frank
Morrison, William Shepherd


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cross, R. H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Crossley, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nunn, William


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jamleson, Douglas
Patrick, Colin M.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jetton, Major Thomas E.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Pearson, William G.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Peat, Charles U.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Penny, Sir George
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Percy, Lord Eustace
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Tata, Mavis Constance


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Salt, Edward W.
Templeton, William P.


Petherick, M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thompson, Sir Luke


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Scone, Lord
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Radford, E. A.
Selley, Harry R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rankin, Robert
Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerset, Thomas
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Weymouth, Viscount


Renter, John R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Soper, Richard
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ropner, Colonel L.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ross, Ronald D.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spens, William Patrick
Wise, Alfred R.


Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)



Runge, Norah Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stevenson, James
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bernays, Robert
Groves, Thomas E.
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorns, William James


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanslly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmln)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 58, columns 2 and 3, to leave out lines 33 and 34.
This is a very narrow Amendment, and I shall confine myself strictly within its terms. I do so explicitly, for one particular reason, and that is that there may be no confusion in the minds of the Committee in regard to where the powers of the Statutory Committee are likely to lead us. We have heard very much in this House in regard to the questions of dictatorship and of constitution, and in fact some Members have been so anxious to give publicity to their faults that they have been asking publicly, "Whither are we going?" Quo Vadis? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad
that at last there is a mentality in the Committee that is able to appreciate the meaning of a word, because it brings me face to face with a conscious House of Commons which up to the present moment I was unaware I was in. What are we dealing with? Ministers and Members of the National Government are shirking their responsibilities by removing the prerogatives of the House of Commons into the hands of a Statutory Committee. It may be that the question of dictatorship at the present time, with an overbearing majority of a national party—

The CHAIRMAN: The question about the Statutory Committee has been dealt with, and the hon. Member must deal only with the definition of suitable employment in the terms of his Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN: The definition of suitable employment brings me down to a narrow point, and I think there are very few Members of the Committee who are strictly in order when they are confined to one particular definition. I take umbrage—[Laughter.] If hon. Members do not know the meaning of the word, I will give them a Chamber's Dictionary. I take umbrage at the terms of the Government's proposal. [Laughter.] The Scotland Division does not worry me nor does the laughter of hon. Members opposite. Let me deal with a definition of suitable employment. Is it to be said that we are to leave to the Statutory Committee the obligation of defining what is suitable employment, when Members of the House of Commons have not yet been able to determine it, and many injustices have been committed?
What is this particular body that is to be set up? I am within my rights in mentioning one power that may be vested in this particular body. The term "suitable employment" must be determined by this body. They are given the power to deal with a definition of the term, and I contend—as I would in an ordinary Parliamentary debating society, and I do not think that this House is anything greater than that, from the point of view of debate—that it is not competent to define the term. What are their powers? Is it to be said that plenary powers are to be handed over to a body of whom we know naught, and who will be able to exercise rights which Members of this House ought to exercise. [Laughter.] I do not know why there should be any laughter.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can save the hon. Member from it by asking him not to discuss any more something which we have already discussed, namely, the suitability or otherwise of this body.

Mr. LOGAN: With all due respect, I am amenable to your Ruling, and I am anxious to conform to the constitutional rules of the House, but I am bound to point out that the question of suitable employment within the terms of my Amendment is a definition that must be dealt with by this body, the Statutory Unemployment Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is quite right, but it is not relevant to the hon. Member's Amendment. It was agreed that there should be a very wide discussion
on Amendments that we have already dealt with, and that that discussion should range generally over the powers to be conferred upon this body, but that on subsequent Amendments the discussion should be limited strictly to the particular powers proposed to be dealt with by those Amendments.

Mr. LOGAN: I do not wish to differ from your Ruling. I am trying to make my own case and not the case of those who titter. With all due respect, this is an Amendment which stands on its own. I admit that it was agreed that a comprehensive discussion should take place on three Amendments, but this Amendment is specific and deals with the question of suitable employment, and such definition must be determined by the Statutory Unemployment Committee. Within that point as to the power vested in the committee in regard to the question of suitable employment, I am dealing with the Amendment, and I am compelled to complain that that is a power which is being taken out of the House of Commons. Hon. Members have no right to delegate to any other body the powers that are vested in the Members of this House as a legislative assembly. I have chosen the question of suitable employment which is to be referred to the Statutory Committee as one of many reasons why we should not delegate to this particular body the right to deal with the question of definition. That should be the duty of the Minister. If legislation is essential he ought to introduce it on a matter of such vital importance. I am not here to represent the national point of view, but to represent the point of view of those people who feel that injustice is being done. I believe it is a dangerous precedent to create. I do not think that this power ought to be vested in any outside body. I believe in the honesty, sincerity and common sense of a British House of Commons to be able to debate essential points which are fundamental.

The CHAIRMAN: We are working at the present time under a special Order of the House, and therefore I do not wish to interfere more than I can help with whatever line of discussion the official Opposition choose to take, but I must point out to the hon. Member that during the whole of his speech he has gone entirely outside the arrangement which was arrived at that a discussion as to the
suitability of delegating powers to this particular body was to be taken on an Amendment with which we have already dealt, and was not to be discussed on this or subsequent Amendments. Therefore, it is for the hon. Member to decide whether he chooses to adhere to that Parliamentary arrangement or not.

Mr. LOGAN: I am as anxious as any other Member to conform to the Ruling of the Chair, but I am also anxious, if it be possible, and I believe it is, to put a point of view. However, I am not going outside your Ruling. I am not so dense as not to understand the Ruling. I have made my point, and that is all that it is essential for me to do. I have tried to point put that in leaving it to this body to define suitable employment we are creating a very dangerous precedent, because I feel that the determination of such a vital point is one for this House. I am not one of those who are anxious to see the constitutional rights of this House disappear, and some other authority come along with proposals, perhaps, of a more revolutionary character. I have moved my Amendment because I feel thoroughly convinced that if we depart from that line of procedure we shall regret it in the future.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I think we really ought to have an answer to the case which has been put up. Wide powers are given to this Statutory Committee, and one of them is to recommend a definition of "suitable employment." The Minister, like everyone else who has taken part in the administration of this legislation, will know that that is one of the most delicate subjects which can be handled by anyone, even by those who are most experienced in unemployment insurance. There are a large number of Umpire's decisions on this point, and it would have been possible for us to bring some of those decisions with us had we not thought originally that we should be discussing each one of these particular powers to be given to the Statutory Committee and would be fully occupied in dealing with the different Sections of the Acts under which the recommendations of the Committee can be made.
Not only are there large numbers of Umpire's decisions on this question of
what is suitable employment, there are, in fact, a volume or two of decisions. The Umpire, who has wide experience, has in the past found himself up against the problem of a man coming from the Yorkshire, the Scottish, or the Durham coalfield, where there are shallow mines, where the men work under cold and wet conditions, being suddenly asked to go to a coalfield where there are deep and hot pits. There have been cases of this description. Such cases cannot be decided off-hand, and the umpire has had very great difficulty in dealing with them. Section 4 of the Act of 1930, says that it is not a question of offering a suitable job but that the claimant
has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation, when offered to him
by an Employment Exchange. There also comes into this a question of wages, where a man who has, perhaps, been a craftsman, is offered a post which may carry a merely nominal fee. There are a number of craftsmen now whose craft is practically non-existent, and who are sent to the South of England, sometimes to apply for posts as attendants, or to be trained as waiters. The question which the Umpire has to decide is whether those posts are suitable or not. There is a whole range of these things which might be offered. We do not want to defend a man at all who refuses a post that is in any way suitable, but the point we want to drive home is that it has been sufficiently difficult for the Umpire and courts of referees to decide in the past, even with their great experience. Representatives are now to be appointed to the Statutory Committee, and this Committee does not know who they are, but they have not even elementary experience of this kind of thing. They will have a mass of other duties thrust upon them, in addition to administration, and there are about 30 definitions and possibilities of recommendations. The point has been put that we are giving duties to the Statutory Committee for which they will not only not have time but will not be fit. When it comes to the very fine and delicate matter of deciding what is suitable employment, it would be a mistake for the Committee to agree that the matter should go absolutely into their hands for recommendation.
The Parliamentary Secretary will say that, even if the recommendation were accepted by the Minister, it would be submitted in an order to the House. That would be so. The theory is that we would have an opportunity of discussing it, but that is only theory. I have had to put down Resolutions and Prayers asking that certain things should be discussed, and have had the experience of their being discussed after 11 o'clock. We say that it is an impossible time, particularly for discussing matters of this kind. If orders are to be put down containing such recommendations, the method of discussing them does not count for practical purposes. We hope that the Committee will not readily give the Minister a provision of this kind to give this power of making recommendations which is, in effect, not only the power to upset the Umpire's decisions, but practically to make laws upon matters which have been within the province of the House of Commons in the past. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter and to omit it and if he cannot omit it all, to omit this particular item. I ask the Committee to refuse to give such powers to the Statutory Committee as are proposed in this Schedule.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to support this Amendment, because it appears to me that the question of suitable employment is of such material importance that it should not be biased by any decision that is bound to be made in advance and is bound to be supported by the Minister after it has been made. I do not think any more need be said as to the reasons why the question of suitable employment is so important in itself, but we have not yet been given an answer on the important point that the Statutory Committee will be appointed by the Government. The Government are not going to be so foolish as to admit that a recommendation of the committee which they themselves have appointed is not one that they are prepared to back at a later stage, and, in consequence, the Minister himself, when he gets the recommendation, will of necessity, in my view, almost invariably accept it and bring it to the House, he will put behind the Resolution the Government Whips, and the result will be that, whether we have the right to discuss it or not, we shall be placed in the position of having to accept the
recommendation. While it is clear that the House still has the power, in practice the House will not have much power, and in these circumstances, I submit, we ought to be careful in what we do about an important question of this kind, and, when we are considering the question of suitable or unsuitable employment, we should not take the risk of leaving it to these five people, but should make it a matter on which the House itself will not only have the final word, but will have an unfettered right of discussing the whole matter and coming to its own conclusions. In these circumstances I think the Committee ought to accept the Amendment.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: There is a special reason why the Statutory Committee ought not to be allowed to have this power. I do not know whether it is within the recollection of hon. Members, but one evening we had a heated argument about cases of special difficulty under Part II of the Bill. Clause 39 of the Bill, in the second paragraph, says:
Provided that an application shall not be so dealt with by reason only that the applicant has not accepted an offer of employment which would not, in relation to a claim for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, have been held to be suitable employment.
Therefore, the range of persons whose cases will be declared to be cases of special difficulty under Part II will be affected by whatever definition of suitable employment is in future laid down by the Statutory Committee. I do not know whether hon. Members quite follow the importance of the point. When a man is classified as a case of special difficulty under Part II, he loses the most elementary rights of citizenship, including the rights over the disposal of his own body, because he may be sent to a training camp, he may be sent to a workhouse, he may be incarcerated in a concentration camp for an indefinite period; he loses his right to receive his payments in cash, and the money can be handed over to the public assistance committee for his maintenance in a local institution. He loses all those valuable rights.
The one protection that we have at the moment is that, if he loses an offer of employment, they cannot classify him as a case of special difficulty unless it is a kind of employment for which he would have been refused benefit under Part I.
But, if the Statutory Committee alters the definition of suitable employment, will the definition at that time be the definition for Clause 39 or the definition as it exists now? In other words will the Statutory Committee be able to widen the definition and make all those men subject to the penalties of cases of special difficulty, or are we to assume that the definition of cases of special difficulty is that contained in the existing law?
I have very great anxiety about these cases of special difficulty, because it is under this Clause that the National Government are being charged with depriving ordinary British citizens of their elementary rights. At the moment a man can refuse to accept a job. He loses his benefit for six weeks, then comes back on insurable benefit, and at the end of it, if the job is still repugnant to him and he refuses it a second time, he can receive assistance from the public assistance committee. Under this Clause that will not be the position. In the future, if he refuses the job, he will not only abandon his right to benefit, he will not only forfeit his right to public assistance, but at the same time he will forfeit his right to remain outside the workhouse and outside the camp. He will forfeit all those rights merely because he refuses a job, and we shall not even have the right to decide whether the job is suitable or not. That will be decided by the Statutory Committee, over which the House will have no control at all. Would the Parliamentary Secretary reply to that question, because it is one to which we attach considerable importance, and, if the definition is that which may exist at the time as laid down by the Statutory Committee, will he on Report put in an Amendment to the effect that the definition of suitable employment to govern cases of special difficulty in Clause 39 shall be the definition that exists at the moment, and not the definition that the Statutory Committee may make it in the future?

10.29 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I do not know whether we are to assume that in discussing this matter hon. Members opposite think that the present definition of suitable employment in their Act of 1930 is satisfactory. I assume that they do and that they consider that no amendment is necessary.
But, if that is the basis of their argument now, it does not quite square with the argument that they advanced last night, when we spent a considerable time in discussing a new Clause that they moved to alter the definition. Evidently, they do not think that the present definition is satisfactory. The arguments of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) did not tally with those of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is distinctly under the impression that the House of Commons at present has some control over what is or is not decided in a particular case to be suitable employment, but the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, in his speech, called attention to the fact that a very large body of case law had been built up over which the House of Commons has no present control. I am merely giving this illustration to show the hopeless disunity of hon. Members opposite on this particular question.

Mr. LAWSON: I merely stated that in order to show the hopelessness of the Government's proposal.

Mr. HUDSON: I do not want to transgress the Chairman's Ruling, but it has been decided by the House that, instead of the House of Commons being asked year after year to consider one at least and often two separate Unemployment Insurance Bills altering this, that and the other thing, a shorter, quicker and simpler machinery should be adopted, namely, that a Statutory Committee should be set up to consider practical matters impartially and report to the Minister, and that it should be for the House of Commons to say "Yes" or "No." That having been decided, it merely remains whether or not this is a suitable subject for decision, or for inclusion in the list to be decided, by the Statutory Committee. I think that hon. Members opposite showed in the new Clause which they put down that the present definition of suitable employment was not, in their opinion, an entirely satisfactory one, and indeed the Amendment is sufficient evidence of their desire to amend this particular definition. If you are going to admit the necessity for an Amendment, there is no alternative, the House having decided on the principle, but to include it in the Schedule.

Mr. A. BEVAN: May I have an answer to my question? I put a specific question to the hon. Gentleman. I asked him to refer to Clause 39, and to tell us whether the definition of "suitable employment" which is to govern cases of special difficulty is the existing definition, or the definition as it may be made by the Statutory Committee. If it is the latter, we are indeed permitting a non-statutory body to take away from unemployed persons their statutory rights. Will the hon. Member answer which of the two it is? If it is the former, it is a most serious matter.

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot agree in the slightest with the contention of the hon. Member. Any recommendation made by the committee, after it has been submitted by the Minister of Labour to this House and has passed this House, will have statutory authority. Therefore, it will not be open to the hon. Member to say that anything has been done to take away the statutory rights of any individual. The statutory rights will be governed by the then existing Statutes.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman really is not replying to my question, which is a matter of the gravest possible importance. We know in Part II of the Bill the persons who are to be regarded as persons of special difficulty, and who, being so classified, will be deprived of valuable rights. We know that at the moment, but we shall not know it in the future, because the Statutory Committee will be able to alter the conditions of classification. The important point about the condition as to suitable employment is the language in which it is phrased. You must be able to put down amendments if you are to have an intelligent discussion. If the Statutory Committee are to be able to alter the definition of "suitable employment," then hundreds and thousands of men will be affected without the House having any control over the matter. That is a point of substantial importance.

Mr. HUDSON: It appears to me, from such portions of the Debate as I have heard, that hon. Members opposite are labouring under a misconception. They keep talking about the Statutory Committee as though it was going to have administrative functions. The Statutory Committee will have no
executive or administrative functions whatever. It will be purely an advisory body, and until its advice has been incorporated by Parliament in the necessary Resolution and this has become a Statute, it will have no power whatever. Once this has been done, the Resolution will become law, like every other provision which is approved by Parliament. There is no question of the Statutory Committee having any arbitrary power.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Nobody has claimed that the Statutory Committee is to have executive powers, but we claim that it will have the power to say that classes of persons shall or shall not come within the Insurance Acts. They may recommend that certain classes should not be included as being in suitable employment. That is a power which the committee has. I presume, however, that power will still remain with the High Court in England and with the Court of Sessions in Scotland where difficulty arises to decide the matter, as the High Court did the other week in the case of football players, that they were outside the law. The Statutory Committee under this Bill have the power to say that mining is not a suitable employment; they will have the power to recommend that miners are not suitable to be included. In fact, they have the power to say what is suitable employment. They may include five or six categories of labour, and it may be that some hon. Members will agree that one class should be taken out, or they may say that another class should remain in. But Parliament will have to reject the lot, or include the lot. This matter of who is to be insurable and who is not is a question for the House of Commons. At the present time the law is that doubtful cases are decided by the courts. We had the recent case in which the High Court decided against footballers earning over £5 a week coming within the Act. Take the case of agricultural workers. Certain men employed in public parks are defined as being outside the Act and others as being inside the Act. The courts now decide these questions. But this Statutory Committee is to be given the power to say, "We have gone into this question and we think that a certain class of workers is costing
the Government too much," and on the recommendation, of the committee that class might be cut out.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member not under a misapprehension as to what this Amendment deals with?

Mr. BUCHANAN: No. It is the question of defining suitable employment.

The CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member was speaking about classes of workers. I do not think that comes within the scope of the Amendment as to "suitable employment." It is suitable employment for a particular applicant.

Mr. HUDSON: I think the hon. Member is really labouring under a misapprehension. Not merely has what he said nothing to do with the Amendment, but the committee has not the power to recommend the inclusion or the exclusion of any class of persons. When I say they have not the power, I mean that their recommendation cannot be given effect to by a Resolution of the House of Commons as to the exclusion or inclusion of those persons. It is true that the committee has power to advise as to whether certain classes can be excluded or not—

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. LAWSON: They could recommend a definition.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, one that would cut out a class.

Mr. LAWSON: That recommendation might be accepted by the House of Commons which would cover the whole of the case laws.

The CHAIRMAN: I must give my own Ruling on the point. The case to which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred, that of the footballers, is quite definitely one which would not be affected by the words dealt with in this Amendment, namely, the definition of "suitable employment" under Section 4 of the Act of 1930. Therefore any argument based upon that case or any parallel case, is entirely outside the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point is that they can say that certain employment is not suitable for an individual, but that decision then becomes the standard for a
group just as when the Umpire to-day gives a decision on an individual, his decision becomes a standard decision for whole classes and groups.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member dealt with a case in which the Umpire gave a decision that coal-mining was not suitable employment for a man who had hitherto been engaged in totally different work, then he would be in order. But when it comes to a definition of what is insurable employment, the hon. Member's argument is out of order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My point is that a decision on an individual case becomes a decision for a class or a group.

Mr. HUDSON: Certainly not. I apologise for contradicting the hon. Member, but really he is wrong. The Umpire does not decide questions of insurability.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I admit that the High Court does not give a decision on insurance, but once they decide the individual case it becomes the law for a class. Similarly, when the Umpire decides whether a certain man is entitled to benefit of a certain kind, he lays down the law for a class. I know that the committee cannot possibly say that they will cut out miners as a class, but they can recommend that particular people shall be outside the benefit, and because of the Resolution their decision will govern a larger class than that to which it originally refers.

The CHAIRMAN: I must definitely rule that the hon. Member is out of Order. "Suitable employment" here means employment which is suitable for a particular man. I agree that that may cover a class, but it is a question of whether it is suitable alternative employment to what he has been doing in the past. It is not a question of whether it is employment which is insurable employment or not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I much regret that I cannot give way on this question, and I feel, Sir Dennis, with great respect, that you are absolutely wrong. As a matter of interpretation, at the present time suitable employment is defined first of all by courts of referees, and then by Umpires. This, however, is a proposal to remit to a Statutory Committee the right to define what is suitable employment. Reading the Schedule, I think that
the committee have a right to say, '"We have come to the conclusion that we define that this class should be outside the Act." I will admit that the point is involved, but I am perfectly clear on it. The committee have the power to say, "We have gone into the matter and we find that this class is outside the Act and recommend accordingly." I may be wrong, as one sometimes is, but in any ease it is most important that such a question should not go to the committee at all. There should be no mistake about that; it is a thing which ought to be retained in the House of Commons.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that the Labour party are inconsistent. He says that hon. Members last night tried to include a class, and now the Government are taking the power away from the Statutory Committee to exclude a class. Surely, if the Committee can include a class, it can exclude a class. He said that this Committee could include the pithead workers if they wanted to; therefore, by the same process of argument, it can exclude a class from the scope of the Act. If I am wrong, I submit that I have been led wrongly by the hon. Gentleman. The Government said last night that they would like this class included, and that they might accept such an Amendment. If they said that this Committee had power to include but no power to exclude, as they say now, this body has not merely the power of defining to bring in, but also the power of defining to put out.

The CHAIRMAN: For the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I can now refer him to the Section referred to in the Schedule. If he will look at it, he will see that I am perfectly right. This Amendment is confined to that Section, which is Section 4 of the Act of 1930, and it deals entirely with the claimant who
after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange…has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such a situation,
and so on. Therefore, it is not in any case a question of whether one man or

one class of men is or is not insurable under the Act. It is simply a question of the definition in the case of each particular man, according to what his employment has been, whether the employment that is offered to him is suitable or not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In that case, the Parliamentary Secretary must have been completely wrong when he talked about the Amendment last night in relation to pithead workers.

Mr. HUDSON: I was talking about a different Amendment which dealt with men refusing a job with an employer who had not an agreement with their union.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I must accept your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I adhere to my point that it affects a class alone, because the umpire and the courts of referees have to decide in individual cases.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: We have had no reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the point of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). His case is one that ought to be answered. Our point in this Amendment is that the umpire, the industrial court, and the courts of referees are far more competent to define what is suitable employment than people who have had no experience in the administration of this law. Hon. Members, like myself and others who have had experience in industrial courts, will know that the umpire is a competent person. For many years he has been defining these things, and with all his experience he will know much more about this matter than any board can hope to know. We think the Minister is taking this matter out of the hands of more competent people and putting it in the hands of people who are inexperienced and inefficient.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 62.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-colonel
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Button)
Banke, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Allan, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bateman, A. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Aske, Sir Robert William
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)


Bernays, Robert
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Sevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Blindell, James
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rankin, Robes


Borodale, Viscount
Hepworth, Joseph
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bossom, A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boulton, W. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Remer, John R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Inskip, Rt Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Burghley, Lord
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burnett, John George
Jamleson, Douglas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Caporn, Arthur Cecll
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Carver, Major William H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Koyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Salt, Edward W.


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Christie, James Archibald
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Selley, Harry R.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Law Sir Alfred
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leckle, J. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Conant, R. J. E.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cooke, Douglas
Little, Graham, Sir Ernest
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Llewellin. Major John J.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somerset, Thomas


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somervell, Sir Donald


Crooks, J. Smedley
Loftus, Plerce C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Soper, Richard


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gatnsb'ro)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Cross, R. H.
Mabane, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crossley, A. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Spens, William Patrick


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacAndraw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stevenson, James


Dawson, Sir Philip
McKie, John Hamilton
Storey, Samuel


Dlckie, John P.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Drewe, Cedrlc
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duckworth, George A. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mannlngham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Templeton, William P.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dunglass, Lord
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Milne, Charles
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Train, John


Fox, Sir Gilford
Mitcheson, G. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gault. Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morrison, William Shepherd
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Munro, Patrick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wlifrid
Wells, Sydney Richard


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
North, Edward T.
Weymouth, Viscount


Graves, Marjorie
Nunn, William
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Greene, William P. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pearson, William G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peat, Charles U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Penny, Sir George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wise, Alfred R.


Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Walter James


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)



Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hanbury Cecil
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Radford, E. A.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyka
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rest (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobble, William
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. John and Mr. D. Grah


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIBMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 61.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Conant, R. J. E.
Hales, Harold K.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cooke, Douglas
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Hanbury, Cecil


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, J. Smedley
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cross, R. H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Crossley, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hepworth, Joseph


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hornby, Frank


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bateman, A. L.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard, Tom Forrest


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Dlckie, John P.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Drewe, Codrle
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bernays, Robert
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Blindell, James
Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Borodale, Viscount
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Dung lass, Lord
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jamleson, Douglas


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Emrys-Evane, P. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Brown, Col D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fox, Sir Gilford
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charies (Montrose)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Buchan, Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burghley, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Burnett, John George
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Law, Sir Alfred


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Leckie, J. A.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goff, Sir Park
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Carver, Major William H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Castlereagh, viscount
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rt'd. N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Graves, Marjorle
Little, Graham, Sir Ernest


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Greene, William P. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Christie, James Archibald
Grimston, R. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Loftus, Pierce C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Mabane, William
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spens, William Patrick


MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stevenson, James


McCorqnodale, M. S.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Storey, Samuel


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rankin, Robert
Strickland, Captain W. F.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Suteliffe, Harold


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tate, Mavls Constance


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Templeton, William P.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. H.
Remar, John R.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Martin, Thomas B.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Milne, Charles
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Train, John


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salt, Edward W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morrison, William Shepherd
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Munro, Patrick
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Selley, Harry R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Weymouth, Viscount


North, Edward T.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Nunn, William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Palmer, Francis Noel
Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Patrick, Colin M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Pearson, William G.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peat, Charles U.
Somerset, Thomas
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Penny, Sir George
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wise, Alfred R.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Walter James


Petherick, M
Soper, Richard



Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Pike, Cecil F.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lord Erskine.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Paling, Wilfred


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney S Zetl'nd)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
White, Henry Graham


Dobble, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William



Foot, lsaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Third Schedule (Provisions as to publication of Draft Regulations and Objections thereto) and Fourth Schedule (Minor amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.